BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

National Audit Office

The Vice-Chairman of the Household reported to the House, That the Address, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Lord Bichard KCB to the office of Chair of the National Audit Office, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

The Vice-Chairman of the Household reported to the House, That the Address, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Professor Sir Ian Kennedy to the office of Chair of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority from the end of his current term until 1 June 2016, was presented to Her Majesty, who was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Infrastructure Investment

Jason McCartney: What steps he is taking to encourage investment in infrastructure in west Yorkshire.

Mark Spencer: What fiscal steps he is taking to encourage investment in infrastructure.

Danny Alexander: Mr Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is at an ECOFIN council meeting today.
	The Government have made huge progress in delivering the infrastructure that the UK needs, establishing the first-ever national infrastructure plan, which now shows that more than 2,500 projects have been completed since 2010. West Yorkshire continues to benefit as part of this plan, which includes the M62 smart motorway westward extension—the first new trans-Pennine road capacity since 1971. As part of the city deal, a combined west Yorkshire authority is taking forward a package of investments in transport worth up to £1.6 billion over 15 years.

Jason McCartney: I very much look forward to the northern powerhouse coming over the Pennines to west Yorkshire. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new bidders for the Northern Rail and TransPennine Express rail franchises will commit themselves to getting rid of the antiquated Pacer trains that plague commuters in my constituency on their daily commute?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which is raised by Members of Parliament and constituents from across the Northern Rail and TransPennine Express franchise areas. I can confirm that in the autumn statement we set out some changes that we would make to those two franchises. The packages for the new franchises will include a substantial package of upgrades, including new services and modern trains in order to phase out the outdated Pacer trains, which have also been raised with us under the Deputy Prime Minister’s Northern Futures programme.

Mark Spencer: If north Nottinghamshire’s coalfields are to feel the success of HS2, connectivity will be key. Will the Chief Secretary assure the House that once we have pulled together a bid for the Robin Hood extension to the villages of Ollerton and Edwinstowe, capital will be made available?

Danny Alexander: I am well aware of the importance of this connection to my hon. Friend and to other Members of Parliament in the area. As he will be aware, the east midlands has already benefited from investment of approximately £70 million to improve line speeds on the midland main line up to 125 miles per hour. Further electrification is due to be extended to Nottingham by 2019. A decision on the Robin Hood line is a matter for the local authority, but we would certainly look on the idea favourably.

Sheila Gilmore: The importance of infrastructure is surely a sign of the importance of Government investment as a way of growing our economy. Does the Chief Secretary therefore agree that one further way that we could move forward on this is to build at least 200,000 new houses a year to help to build our economy?

Danny Alexander: I totally agree with the hon. Lady. It is incredibly important to improve the rate of house building. I would set the figure at closer to 300,000 houses a year across the UK, rather than the 200,000 that she mentioned. She will know that in the autumn statement we extended the affordable house building programme for a further two years in order to build 275,000 affordable homes in the next Parliament. We are taking forward the idea of Government commissioning of housing, which would be a radical departure for this country, at Northstowe, and looking at it as a solution for the whole country.

Greg Mulholland: I warmly welcome the infrastructure announcement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we also need further devolution to allow the much-needed rail link to Leeds Bradford airport and the electrification of the Leeds-Harrogate-York line? Will he meet me and other interested colleagues who represent the area to discuss how we can take this forward?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that devolution, city deals and the growth plans we have put in place for every local enterprise partnership area are an incredibly important part of delivering infrastructure. He refers to two projects that are very important in the city he represents and I would, of course, be delighted to meet him and any other interested colleagues to discuss them.

Andrew Love: One hears the pious words of the Chief Secretary regarding house building, but has he not presided over the lowest level of house building since the 1920s?

Danny Alexander: In case the hon. Gentleman does not remember, he was present in the last Parliament when his party was in government and caused the most severe economic crash that this country had experienced for very many decades. The housing market, of course, gets affected by the economic cycle, which is precisely why this Government have presided over the highest level of affordable house building in this country for 20 years. Under the hon. Gentleman’s party, the number of affordable houses in this country fell by 421,000; under this Government, it has risen by hundreds of thousands.

Economic Growth (The Humber)

Andrew Percy: What steps the Government are taking to support economic growth in the Humber.

Danny Alexander: The Government have taken many steps to rebalance the economy and strengthen every part of the United Kingdom. In the case of the Humber, the growth deal was announced in July, building on the success of the city deal, which was announced in 2013. We have also just announced £80 million for flood defences for the Humber estuary. I am pleased to see that our investment in that part of the country is working. Employment in Yorkshire and the Humber is now at the highest level on record at 2.51 million.

Andrew Percy: Key to economic development in east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire are, of course, our tidal flood defences, which are so important. Last week the Government announced that the Environment Agency would undertake a review of the package proposed by myself, other local MPs and local authorities. Will the Chief Secretary ensure that Treasury and, if possible, Cabinet officials will also be involved in that process? It needs to be Treasury-led, rather than EA-led, to give us the result we require.

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The proposal by the local enterprise partnership is incredibly important and it needs to be assessed in detail by experts at the EA. The National Audit Office recently commended the EA on the way in which it carries out such appraisals. None the less, given the significance of the issue and the fact that it was announced as part of the national infrastructure plan, I shall make sure that Treasury officials are also involved in the process.

Martin Vickers: Although I welcome the announcements in the autumn statement and the northern powerhouse initiative, too often in northern Lincolnshire in the Humber region we feel somewhat remote from the northern powerhouse. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that further initiatives will link the north-western part of the northern powerhouse to the Yorkshire and the Humber region?

Danny Alexander: Under this Government, there have been a number of initiatives in the Humber area that have helped to grow the economy, not the least of which is the enormous effort that Ministers in several Departments made in attracting the Siemens investment to Hull, which is an incredibly important part both of creating jobs in that area and of delivering our ambitions for renewable energy.

Income Tax

Iain McKenzie: What recent estimate he has made of how much the reduction in the additional rate of income tax to 45% is worth for a person earning £1 million a year.

David Gauke: The cost of reducing the additional rate of income tax to 45% is estimated at about £100 million a year. That is set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2013. We have not broken down the impact by income ranges, because there is a significant behavioural response associated with the additional rate of income tax. That behavioural response is estimated in aggregate and reflected in the costing.

Iain McKenzie: Christmas is coming and it is a time for giving, but the truth is that this Government have been giving to millionaires for some time. The average tax cut to millionaires is worth £100,000 a year. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that that figure for the Government’s tax giveaway to millionaires is correct? How many of my constituents in Inverclyde have benefited from that reduction in tax?

David Gauke: What is a fact is that the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% for the years since the 50p rate was cut has in every year been higher than in any of the years in which the 50p rate was in operation. It is this Government who have made changes to stamp duty land tax—that was just last week—and to capital gains tax, and who have dealt with reliefs and exemptions, to ensure that the wealthiest play a greater share than they have in the past.

Steven Baker: Is it not the truth that people are able to change their behaviours to reduce their tax liabilities, and is it not the case that if the Government want to raise more from the wealthiest, it is necessary to lower the rate to a point where it encourages them to earn and to pay?

David Gauke: As I said a moment or so ago, in the two years since the 50p rate was reduced to 45p, a greater share has come from the top 1% than in the previous three years. There is a lesson to be learned there. It is
	probably the reason why the previous Labour Government had a 50p rate for only 35 days out of their 4,758 days in office.

Shabana Mahmood: Will the Minister rule out a further cut to the additional rate of income tax for the top 1% of earners? Will he rule out another tax cut for millionaires?

David Gauke: The priority of the next Conservative Government will be increasing the personal allowance to £12,500, and the rate at which higher-rate taxpayers pay the 40p rate to £50,000 a year. The truth is that our focus is on ensuring that we can lift people out of income tax, which is not a record of which the previous Government can boast.

Shabana Mahmood: I will take that as a no. The Minister has failed to rule out another tax cut for the richest 1% of earners in our country. As he signalled in his answer, the Prime Minister has made £7 billion-worth of unfunded tax promises for the next Parliament. We did not find out in the autumn statement where the money is coming from to pay for these promises, so unless the Minister can stand at the Dispatch and categorically rule out raising VAT again, will not people just conclude that the only way the Chancellor can pay for his unfunded tax promises is with another Tory VAT rise?

David Gauke: Our plans do not require us to raise taxes. [Interruption.] The shadow Chief Secretary, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), is heckling, but I have to say that when he was asked that question on television last week, he refused to rule out raising VAT. Our plans do not require taxes to rise, unlike—I have to say—those of the Labour party.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that a fair tax system should see everyone contributing to reduce the deficit, with those with the largest earnings making the largest contribution? Am I correct that the top 1% of taxpayers actually pay nearly 30% of all income tax receipts at present?

David Gauke: My right hon. Friend is correct in that assessment. That proportion is higher than occurred in any year under the previous Labour Government or, indeed, when the 50p rate was in place.

Mr Speaker: I call Pat Glass. Not here.

Corporation Tax

Charlie Elphicke: What estimate he has made of corporation tax receipts in each year since 2010; and if he will make a statement.

David Gauke: Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs publishes annual corporation tax statistics every August. They show that revenues from corporation tax, excluding the ring-fenced oil and gas regime, were £35 billion in 2010-11, £33 billion in 2011-12, £35 billion in 2012-13 and £36 billion in 2013-14. The Government have delivered
	major cuts to corporation tax, but increased growth and investment in the UK mean that revenues from the main regime were higher last year than in 2010.

Charlie Elphicke: Is my hon. Friend aware that non-oil corporation tax receipts have risen 16% over the course of this Parliament so far, compared with a rise of just 8% over the entirety of the previous 13 years? Does that not show that if you cut the rate, you up the take? [Interruption.] How will the diverted profits tax work?

Mr Speaker: Order. The question was simply too long. The hon. Gentleman should have cut it off when he was winning, instead of going on for too long, which is what he then continued to do.

David Gauke: It is right that we have reduced the corporation tax rate. Next year, it will give us the lowest rate in the G20. That is resulting in greater investment in the UK. It would certainly be a mistake to reverse that policy, as the Labour party intends. In terms of the diverted profits tax, I would point out that it will help to deal with aggressive tax avoidance. We will publish the draft legislation on that tomorrow, setting out the full details of how it will operate.

Barry Sheerman: The House knows that I am an avid listener of the “Today” programme. Did the Minister hear the interview this morning, which showed how ineffective it is to have this great gap between the rich and the poor in our country? The tax system is increasing that gap, not helping it. What is he going to do about it, because it makes our economy less efficient?

David Gauke: As it happens, the distributional analysis shows that our policies have narrowed the gap. The point is that we have made changes to our tax system to ensure a greater contribution from the wealthiest in terms of stamp duty land tax and capital gains tax. We have reduced some of the reliefs and exemptions that meant some high earners did not pay taxes. I am afraid that the idea that a 50p rate was effective in achieving such objectives—including raising revenue—is simply wrong.

Ian Swales: Further to the Minister’s answer on the diverted profits tax, will he confirm whether it will cover businesses that run substantial operations in the UK, but that invoice from Ireland or Luxembourg to avoid tax?

David Gauke: We are confident that the measure will be effective in targeting multinationals that use aggressive tax planning and contrived structures to avoid UK tax. The diverted profits tax will be charged at 25% and will raise more than £1 billion over the scorecard period.

Stephen Timms: The current corporation tax rate is the lowest in the G7 and there are good reasons why that is the case. However, on small business Saturday last weekend, many of us were reminded of the heavy burden of business rates. Would it not be better, instead of reducing the corporation tax rate further, to use the same money to reduce business rates?

David Gauke: I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who performed the role of Financial Secretary with great distinction, that in his time in office there were no measures to reduce business rates in the way that we have done in the last two autumn statements by putting in place a cap of 2%, bringing in a rebate for retailers and extending small business rate relief. This Government have an excellent record on business rates—a message that I am sure many hon. Members heard on small business Saturday at the weekend.

Uncollected Tax

Jim McGovern: What estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.

Sarah Champion: What estimate HM Revenue and Customs has made of the amount of uncollected tax in the UK.

David Gauke: HMRC published its latest tax gap estimates on 16 October 2014. The tax gap in 2012-13 was estimated to be £34 billion, which was 6.8% of the total tax due.

Jim McGovern: Last week in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced plans to address tax avoidance. If he and the Treasury are serious about that, why did they vote down an amendment that said that the quoted eurobond—I am sorry, but I cannot quite remember the words. They did not support that amendment, costing this country £500 million per year.

David Gauke: The reason we have not pursued that policy is that, having looked at it carefully, we do not believe that it would raise anything like the revenue that has been suggested, nor that it would do anything for the UK’s competitiveness. The Government have consistently taken action on tax avoidance, tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. I would happily list the measures, Mr Speaker, but I suspect that you would not allow me the time to do so. By 2015-16, we believe that those measures will be bringing in £7.6 billion a year.

Sarah Champion: I thank the Minister for his answers to Question 5 and to these questions. Will he explain why I am fighting against funding cuts for families in crisis in Rotherham because the council does not have enough Government funding to support them, while some big companies are getting away with not paying a penny in corporation tax?

David Gauke: Very difficult decisions have had to be made to deal with the deficit that we inherited. On the contribution from larger companies, as we have heard, the tax take from large companies through corporation tax has continued to rise and we have continued to take measures to deal with tax avoidance. As I have said, just last week, we announced that we would operate the diverted profits tax, the details of which will be set out tomorrow. That is an example of where the Government are taking tough, practical action to ensure that everybody pays what is required under the law.

Stephen Mosley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the investment and effort that have been put into tackling tax avoidance
	and evasion since the general election, a record number of people are being prosecuted, with 2,600 people having been prosecuted in this Parliament alone?

David Gauke: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct—we have substantially increased the number of prosecutions in that area. The yield brought in by HMRC as a consequence of its enforcement action has also increased substantially, and in the autumn statement it was announced that that yield is anticipated to be £26 billion in 2014-15—around £9 billion more than when we came to office.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister has made much of what the Government are doing on tax avoidance, but will he tell the House by how much tax receipts were revised down in the autumn statement?

David Gauke: It is the case that tax receipts were revised down, but so was expenditure on debt interest payments. This country continues to face the major challenge of living within our means, and it is important to have a Government who stick to the long-term economic plan that delivers that.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister gave a very partial answer because he did not mention the fact that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that tax receipts have been revised down by £25 billion by 2018-19. Is one key reason for that the fact that wage growth has been revised down again, and that the Government’s failure to raise living standards for working people is why they have also failed to meet their promise to balance the books by next year?

David Gauke: The answer to increasing wage growth is not just to observe that it would be nice if wages went up but to have no policies to do that. If we want wage growth, we need investment in the UK, which we are getting. We want more people in jobs, and a record number of people are in jobs. We want to improve our training and education system, and record numbers of people are taking up apprenticeships. We want to improve our transport infrastructure, and the Government have committed to the biggest road building programme since the 1970s. If we want wage growth, we must stick to the long-term economic plan.

Employment Statistics

Jackie Doyle-Price: What recent estimate he has made of the level of employment.

Danny Alexander: I am pleased to tell the House that employment is at its highest-ever level in this country with 30.8 million people in work. Since the coalition came to power, employment has increased by more than 1.7 million, meaning that on average an extra person has become employed every 80 seconds since the Government were formed in 2010. Last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published its latest forecast, estimating that an extra million people will be in work by 2019.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The Government can be proud of creating on average 1,000 jobs a day. That is not just a number; it is more people with the security of a job and a regular pay packet. Will my right hon. Friend reassure
	my constituents in Thurrock that we will stick to the policies that are creating record numbers of people in work?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right. It is incredibly important that we create jobs in this country as that is providing opportunities and incomes for people who did not have one previously. The Government should be proud of that. Today the 2 millionth apprentice has been recruited under this Government, and the young lady, Paige McConville of Oxford, will meet the Business Secretary to highlight that achievement.

Meg Hillier: Many people in my constituency who are in work are trapped in low-paid minimum wage jobs. Often they are not able to add to the hours that they work in order to earn more, and they rely on the state for prop-ups with housing benefit and tax credits. When will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury understand the cost of living crisis in the country, and what will the Government do about it?

Danny Alexander: I recognise that some people find themselves in the situation the hon. Lady describes, and that is precisely why we need a growing economy that creates more jobs, as it does in her constituency. The economy is creating more employment opportunities and allowing people to progress in work. The most recent figures showed that people who have been in full-time work for more than a year—85% of the jobs created in the past year are full time—have seen their wages increase by 4%.

Chloe Smith: The UK has seen more net employment growth in the past four years than the rest of the EU put together. Has the Chief Secretary also noted that, according to the same figures, more of our young people are in work than in Germany, Ireland and France, and the position is far better than in Greece, where only one in four young people are in work? Does that not show that we need to stay the course and help more of our young people into work?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend is right. It is a fact that the United Kingdom has created more jobs than all the other countries in the European Union put together. That shows the success we have had in delivering economic growth by working through the balanced careful plan that we put in place at the start of this Parliament. She could also have mentioned the fact that female employment, at 73%, is at its highest-ever level.

Geraint Davies: A couple with two children who are both working—the woman in part-time work on £10,000 and the man on £25,000—will have lost £9,417 in withdrawn tax credits in the autumn statement. The Chief Secretary talks about putting up the threshold, but he gets much more back from the poorest. When will he pursue a progressive policy that makes work pay for the poorest?

Danny Alexander: I beg to differ with the hon. Gentleman. The policy of increasing the income tax threshold to £10,600, which was put on the table by my party the Liberal Democrats back in 2010, is putting £825 back into the pockets of 26 million working people
	on low and middle incomes. Improving work incentives and earnings for people in work is something he should celebrate and everyone in the House should welcome.

Guy Opperman: Is the Chief Secretary aware that in the north-east of England we have the fastest rate of growth in private sector businesses in the autumn quarter and the most tech start-ups outside of London? Does that not show that the long-term economic plan is beginning to work?

Danny Alexander: Actually, I was not aware of either of those facts, but they do not surprise me because of the entrepreneurial spirit and the brilliant businesses we have in the north-east of England. I believe it is the only region of this country that is a net exporter to the rest of the world. Through the measures we are putting in place, including the investment in infrastructure, we need to continue to support that part of the country.

Rushanara Ali: Does the Chief Secretary agree that we need to redouble our efforts to reduce the unemployment level for young people from 730,000, and that some 1 million young people are still not in training or education? Does he think that his Government could do much more to get them back to work?

Danny Alexander: I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to do more to reduce the level of unemployment among our young people, but I point out to her, and it would have been fair for her to point it out, that we have seen a very sharp fall in the level of youth unemployment and a very sharp increase in the level of employment of young people in the past 12 months. That suggests to me that the policy mix the coalition has put in place is precisely the right one to achieve those objectives.

High Street Retailers (Tax Levels)

Henry Bellingham: When he next plans to meet representatives of high street retailers to discuss levels of tax; and if he will make a statement.

Danny Alexander: I met small business representatives in Inverness on Saturday as part of small business Saturday. In response to concerns expressed by small businesses, the Government have taken decisive action that has reduced employment and property taxes paid by high street retailers. As of April this year, businesses can claim a deduction of up to £2,000 in their national insurance contributions, and next year 300,000 shops, pubs and cafes will receive a business rates discount of up to £1,500.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister is probably not aware—there is no reason why he should be—that I have recently been visiting shops in the high streets of both King’s Lynn and Hunstanton. Is he aware that they are delighted—absolutely thrilled—with the business rate discount that is now being raised to £1,500? Can he give me an estimate of how many shops in my constituency will benefit from that?

Danny Alexander: I was not aware of my hon. Friend’s shopping habits, but I am very glad to hear that he has been spending time with small businesses in his
	constituency.I can tell him that in the King’s Lynn and west Norfolk area there are 1,280 small businesses that will benefit from the £1,500 discount. That is something worth celebrating in his constituency, as it is across the country.

Ian Lucas: Does the Chief Secretary agree that a further rise in VAT would be a hammer blow to small businesses in Wrexham and across the country? Does he also know that a Labour Government have never increased VAT?

Danny Alexander: I am not sure that last fact is absolutely correct. The level of VAT we have at the moment I think is the right one for the country and I certainly would not advocate any further increases. The right measures for small businesses are the reductions in business rates that we have put in place, which I would hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome. The fundamental review of business rates that we are now undertaking is an opportunity for every Member of this House, and small business across the country, to make the argument on how they want this outdated and outmoded system to be reformed.

Tax Avoidance

Stephen McPartland: What recent steps he has taken to reduce tax avoidance.

David Gauke: We set out the next set of steps in our plan to tackle tax avoidance in the autumn statement last week. We are introducing a new diverted profits tax from 1 April 2015 using a 25% rate to counter the use of aggressive tax planning techniques used by multinational enterprises to divert profits from the UK. We are also strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime, coupled with a further suite of measures that build on the work we have already done to tackle marketed tax avoidance such as accelerated payments of disputed tax in avoidance cases.

Stephen McPartland: My constituents work hard and pay their taxes and rightly expect other people and businesses to do the same. Does the Minister agree that the autumn statement last week showed that it is Government Members who are serious about delivering fairer taxes for all?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is entirely right. As a Government, we believe in competitive taxes but we also believe in a system in which people and businesses pay those taxes.

Frank Roy: If the Government are serious on tax avoidance, why has the much-heralded Swiss tax deal brought in only a third of the projected income?

David Gauke: That particular measure has not brought in as much as was forecast, but I can point to others that have brought in more than was forecast. One example is disguised remuneration, which the Office for Budget Responsibility highlighted last week and has brought in more than was anticipated. We anticipated that it would
	bring in £750 million a year; it will bring in more than that. By the way, that measure was opposed by the Labour party.

Housing Market

Mark Lazarowicz: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the housing market on the economy.

Andrea Leadsom: The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. The Government’s Help to Buy scheme and last week’s stamp duty reforms will continue to support housing market activity and new housing supply is already responding with housing starts growing by 16% in the year to 2014 in quarter three.

Mark Lazarowicz: The recent measures are no doubt welcome, but would the Minister care to confirm that annual house completions have been lower in every year under her Government than in every year of the last Labour Government?

Andrea Leadsom: The point is that we believe in the aspiration to buy your own home. We have seen house prices recover but they are still in real terms lower than they were at the peak under the last Government. This Government have delivered housing starts at their highest since 2007 and our Help to Buy scheme, which has helped 77,000 people to get on to the property ladder, is a very important measure.

David Rutley: I am pleased that the Government’s stamp duty reforms are already helping more first-time buyers in Macclesfield. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the effect the stamp duty reform plus the Help to Buy scheme will have on helping more people to get established on the housing ladder?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is quite right. Our stamp duty changes have meant that 98% of the people who pay stamp duty will receive a cut, which will enable more people to get on to the housing ladder. Our Help to Buy scheme will also encourage more aspirational young people to buy their first home.

Tax Credits

Chris Ruane: What proportion of recipients of tax credits are in employment.

Yasmin Qureshi: How many employed people are in receipt of tax credits.

Priti Patel: Tax credits provide financial support to low-income households. In April 2014 there were 3.3 million families in work receiving tax credits. That had fallen from 4.8 million in April 2010. In total there are 4.7 million families receiving tax credits, 71% of whom are in work.

Mr Speaker: Formally the group of questions falls if the Member with the lead is absent but I dare say we can improvise.

Chris Ruane: Thousands of hard-working families in my constituency have been bit by tax credit cuts, a £300 increase in their energy bills, the bedroom tax and the increase in VAT. This Government offer tax cuts to millionaires and porridge and food banks to low-paid workers. When will the Government allow British workers to share in the wealth of this country?

Priti Patel: It is fair to say that this Government ensure that people are better off in work, in stark contrast to the failed dependency policies of the Labour party. We are the party in government that has taken action to support people on low incomes by increasing the personal allowance, taking 3.2 million people on low incomes out of tax altogether and increasing the national minimum wage. We should all remember which party was responsible for the cost of living crisis; it was Labour’s great recession. We are the Government who have frozen fuel duty and council tax and it is our policies that are now leading to growth in the economy.

Andrew Bridgen: The latest figures show that the number of individuals classed as being in in-work poverty has fallen by 300,000 since this Government came to office, at the same time as an extra 2 million people are in work. What Government measures does my hon. Friend think have contributed to this rise in people’s income?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is fair to say that this Government are not returning to the failed policies of the past as seen under the Labour party. The key measure explaining why we have had so much growth in our economy is our focus on our long-term economic plan, which is securing a better future for our economy, for the country and, of course, for hard-working taxpayers.

Yasmin Qureshi: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady’s opportunity is now. Her moment has arrived; her voice should be heard.

Yasmin Qureshi: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister confirm that 10 million households will be affected by the two-year freeze on tax credits and benefits and that the average household will be £974 worse off? This will hit working people the most, and women in particular, so will the Government reconsider their position?

Priti Patel: I come back to my earlier point about employment increasing and more women being in work than ever before. When it comes to tax credits, universal credit will go on to replace the current complex and broken system of means-tested benefits—introduced by the Labour party, by the way—and we are the party that has supported people to get into work and reduce dependency rather than confining them to dependency and welfare.

Pensioners and Savers

Henry Smith: What steps he has taken to support people with savings and pensioners.

Andrea Leadsom: This Government are determined to support savers and pensioners—unlike the last Government who gave them miserly increases in state pensions. Since 2010, we have delivered the biggest-ever increase in the individual savings account allowance and for pensioners the triple lock means that they will receive about £560 more in 2015-16 than under the last Government’s policy. We have also given pensioners the freedom to choose how and when to access their own pension.

Henry Smith: My hon. Friend is right that the previous Administration caused the great recession, which has meant that savers in Crawley have suffered considerably. Last week’s autumn statement proved that this Government stand up for the aspiration of passing on savings to our children.

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is quite right. He will be as delighted as we are that we are now allowing people to pass on their unused ISAs to their spouse or civil partner free of tax, and their defined contribution pension schemes are also to be free of tax to their successors. This was a great move, allowing people to decide what they do with the money they have saved during their lifetimes.

Helen Jones: Most pensioners in my constituency do not have enough savings to put money in an ISA, but can the Minister confirm that owing to recent measures announced by the Government, those who receive the savings element of pension credit will, because of its interaction with pensions, receive only an 87p rise?

Andrea Leadsom: The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that this Government introduced the triple lock for pensioners to ensure that, instead of under the last Government when they received only the increase in average earnings, pensioners under this Government will receive an element for inflation, average earnings or 2%, whichever is the higher.

Government Borrowing

David Ruffley: What recent representations he has received on the introduction of new fiscal rules to limit government borrowing.

Andrea Leadsom: The Government will shortly publish the revised charter for budget responsibility, which will set out new fiscal rules in detail. As the Chancellor said last week, there is more to do, but our long-term economic plan is working. The deficit is forecast to fall this year, down from what the Office for Budget Responsibility described as the post-war record deficit of 10.2% of gross domestic product in 2009-10 to 5% this year—cutting it in half.

David Ruffley: I thank the Minister for that reply. I commend the autumn statement, in particular chart 1.9 therein, which makes it clear that any Government who wish to reduce debts as a share of GDP to under 40% in the next 20 years will not merely have to balance the budget, but to run a surplus of 1% of GDP on the budget. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is essential that new fiscal rules are created and voted on frequently to achieve this massively important debt reduction?

Andrea Leadsom: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition talk about balancing the books, but in fact what they are talking about is borrowing more once their current budget is in surplus, and that is a complete fabrication, because what the Opposition need to recognise is that the only way to return this country to prosperity is not just to deal with the massive debt left by Labour but also to get our economy back into long-term growth and long-term surpluses. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. It is very disorderly for Members to yell at the Minister from a sedentary position, and I remind you, Mr Lucas, that you have still got to complete your apprenticeship to become a statesman. I keep updating the House on progress, but there is still a little distance to travel.

Bill Esterson: Many people in work are relying on benefits just to survive, and they are not paying tax, all of which contributes to the reason why the deficit has gone up more than the Minister, and her Government when they came in, promised. Today’s OECD report says countries that promote equality will grow and prosper. Will she accept that her Government have got it disastrously wrong for so many people and adopt the policies suggested by the OECD, including a higher rate of top tax?

Andrea Leadsom: I find it absolutely extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman can talk about the under- achievement of this Government. It is not by chance that our economy is the fastest growing in the G7; it is not by chance that there are 2 million more people in work in the private sector; and it is not by chance that there are now 2 million apprentices, as of today. It is extraordinary that the Opposition do not see that it is all about economic recovery, not interfering and borrowing more.

Mr Speaker: As usual we are pressed for time, but I cannot allow excessively long early questions and answers to deny Members who have been waiting patiently, so we will now hear, I hope, from Mr Philip Hollobone.

Personal Tax Allowance

Philip Hollobone: What the basic rate personal tax allowance was in May 2010; what that rate would have been in May 2015 if indexed to inflation; and what that rate will be in May 2015.

David Gauke: The tax-free personal allowance was £6,475 in May 2010. It would have risen to just £7,485 by May 2015 through inflation, but the Government announced
	at autumn statement 2014 that the personal allowance would be increased to £10,600 from April 2015, and this is being legislated for in the Finance Bill 2015.

Philip Hollobone: By next May how many people does my hon. Friend estimate will have been taken out of paying income tax all together in (a) Kettering, (b) Northamptonshire, and (c) the country as a whole?

David Gauke: By April this year the Government’s measures, including increases in the personal allowance for those born after 5 April 1948, are estimated to have taken about 3.4 million individuals out of the income tax system altogether. Some 248,000 of these individuals live in the east midlands region, which of course includes the constituency of Kettering in Northamptonshire.

Topical Questions

Fiona O'Donnell: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Danny Alexander: The core purpose of the Treasury is to ensure economic stability, promote growth and employment, reform the banking system and restore sanity to the public finances.

Fiona O'Donnell: On Wednesday I asked the Chancellor about public registers of beneficial ownership in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. He replied that
	“they are all consulting, right now, on the creation of these registries.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 328.]
	The fact is that two are not consulting and the others have all finished their consultations, although none has published its submissions or its policies. Will the Chief Secretary now set the record straight?

Danny Alexander: I will set the record straight. The record shows that under the previous Labour Government the Crown dependencies and these bodies did not make any progress on registers of beneficial ownership. Progress is being substantially made now because of the lead this Government showed at the G8. By the way, these same places have also now agreed to the automatic exchange of tax information, to make sure that for the first time—this is something the Government of the hon. Lady’s party never did—we can get tax from people who are trying to hide it in these jurisdictions.

Stewart Jackson: My constituents in Peterborough who work at Thomas Cook and many families with young children will have been delighted by the announcement on children’s air passenger duty in last week’s autumn statement. Will the Exchequer Secretary give an undertaking that she will continue to monitor the impact of air passenger duty on tourism and the family budget and not rule out further cuts in the near future?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The reductions in air passenger duty announced last week are to be welcomed not just by his constituents and by Thomas Cook but by hard-working families across the country. As with all other taxes, air passenger duty will be kept
	under review, taking into account our commitment to creating sustainable public finances alongside helping households and, of course, the tourism industry.

Christopher Leslie: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that table 2.3 on page 67 of the autumn statement shows that total managed expenditure will fall to 35% of GDP by 2020? According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, that is a level not seen since the late 1930s. Does he stand by the autumn statement or not?

Danny Alexander: The way in which the autumn statement is constructed is that the OBR is given an assumption about the path of the public finances over the course of the whole of the next Parliament. As I explained yesterday to readers of The Daily Telegraph—perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not count himself as one of them—a neutral assumption is built into the public finances post 2017-18 which assumes that spending will stay flat in real terms. That enables the OBR to construct its forecast. In my view, when we have finished dealing with the structural deficit post 2017-18, public expenditure will be able to grow faster than that.

Christopher Leslie: It does not sound as though the right hon. Gentleman stands by the autumn statement much, Mr Speaker. On Wednesday, the chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility wrote to the Business Secretary confirming that the autumn statement and all the policy assumptions leading to this figure of 35% were
	“signed off by the ‘quad’”.
	Is the Chief Secretary still a member of the “quad”, and is that actually true? Why is he now pretending to distance himself from his consistent record of Tory collaboration when he has been as thick as thieves with them in vote after vote, year after year, time and time again?

Danny Alexander: I guess it is a tough job being shadow Chief Secretary: he has to deal with the shadow Chancellor. I saw a quote from the previous Chancellor just this weekend, in Alan Cochrane’s diaries. It said, “I don’t think Miliband gets much of a look-in on the economy now. He’s a difficult man, is Balls.” I guess that is what they mean by a zero-zero economy: one Ed has zero influence; the other has zero credibility. Let me say this to the Labour party and to the Conservative party: both of them, in different ways, are advocating relentless austerity for the whole of the next Parliament, and it is only the Liberal Democrats turning around the public finances after 2017-18 who offer any hope of a change in the future.

John Glen: Public Health England at Porton Down in my constituency is at the centre of the global life sciences industry and works with 250 partnerships across the globe. The outline business case is currently before a number of Government Departments. Will the Minister assure me that the fullest range of options will be considered, including a proposal to set up a UK centre for a global response to infectious diseases, which I believe would reduce the call on the British taxpayer?

Danny Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is an important and, I understand, sensitive decision, which Public Health England is considering in
	all its aspects. The outline business case is currently with Treasury officials for scrutiny. I know that this work is incredibly important, not least given the recent Ebola outbreak in west Africa, but it would be inappropriate for me to give any further details on the business case until the review has been completed.

Jim McGovern: I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will be aware of just how important the video games industry is to Dundee and to my constituency. The Chancellor said last week that he would support exports. Businesses in the video games industry are often started by university graduates with little or no financial support, yet they end up employing people. What will the autumn statement mean for the video games businesses in Dundee?

Danny Alexander: I absolutely recognise the importance of the video games industry to Dundee and other parts of the country, and indeed to many hon. Members. I do not know whether Candy Crush was developed in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but it is clearly very popular in the House. The package of measures in the autumn statement to support exporters will benefit the video games industry, as will the improvements to tax relief for research and development, which will particularly benefit small and medium-sized enterprises. If he has further ideas for measures that might benefit that industry in his area, I would be glad to hear them.

Mr Speaker: I know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will not want to talk out opportunities for his own hon. and right hon. Friends. I call Mr Roger Williams.

Roger Williams: On small business Saturday I visited retail businesses in Brecon, Llanwrtydwells and Talgarth. They told me how pleased they were with the employment allowance, which gave them a reduction of up to £2,000 in their employer national insurance contributions. More than 1,000 businesses benefit from that in my constituency, but up to 500 that are eligible have not applied. What can we do to encourage them to take up this important measure?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to highlight the importance of these changes. As a local Member of Parliament, he has a particularly important role to play in promoting them, as he has done for the businesses already taking them up. I encourage him to continue to do that and to talk to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills about whether there is more we can do to get that message across.

Chi Onwurah: Last week, the Chancellor said:
	“What I reject is the totally hyperbolic BBC coverage on spending cuts. I had all that…four years ago and has the world fallen in? No”.
	At my surgeries, I meet mothers dependent on food banks to feed their families, fathers desperate at lost Sure Start services, and disabled pensioners choosing
	between heating and eating. They tell me that their world has fallen in. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Chancellor that they are being “hyperbolic”?

Danny Alexander: I am sure the hon. Lady explained to those constituents that the severe economic problems this country is experiencing and recovering from were caused on her party’s watch when it was in office. Although I share the view that these are difficult issues, I hope she would also highlight the fact that her constituency has seen 5,200 jobs created in the past 12 months.

Maria Miller: The confidence to create a new business is a true barometer of the progress this Government are making on the long-term economic plan. Will the Chief Secretary join me in welcoming the 1,000 new businesses that have been created in my constituency in the past 12 months? What is he doing to encourage more people to find their entrepreneurial spirit?

Danny Alexander: The right hon. Lady is right about that, and I join her in congratulating all 1,000 of those businesses in her constituency and millions more nationwide. We are talking about people who have set up their own businesses and are working hard to create wealth, jobs and growth for this country. That is why a range of the tax and regulatory changes we have put in place have been designed precisely to make the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business.

Jim Cunningham: A few weeks ago, the Chancellor rushed off to Europe to try to get the cap on bankers’ pay lifted. Will he do the same for public sector workers, and, in particular, nurses?

Danny Alexander: I am not sure that that is a matter for discussion at a European Union level.

Gordon Birtwistle: Rebalancing the economy has been crucial in delivering the coalition Government’s economic plan. Delivering skills for the future is vital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the funding of professional careers advice must be part of the plan, to ensure that the growth in manufacturing is secured for the future?

Danny Alexander: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend on that. He has done more than most Members of this House to promote apprenticeships, the creation of skills and the manufacturing industry, and I pay tribute to him for his work. I ask him to look at what we have said about this in the autumn statement, which contains particular measures to promote the provision of better careers advice in schools.

Kelvin Hopkins: This week, growth forecasts for the eurozone economies have again been downgraded, but the European Central Bank is refusing to adopt counteracting measures of quantitative easing. What plans do the Government have for protecting Britain’s economy in the event of a full-blown euro crisis?

Danny Alexander: The best protection for the UK is to stick to the economic plan that is creating jobs and growth up and down this country. That is what the
	coalition has done and will continue to do. The OBR’s forecast, published last week, showed that it expects the UK, despite the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers, to continue to have economic momentum over the next few years.

Anne McIntosh: Rural communities are clearly not part of the city regions and possibly will not form part of the northern powerhouse. What assurances can the Chief Secretary give us that rural communities will benefit from the increased prosperity from the long-term economic plan?

Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I would say to her that rural communities are part of local enterprise partnership areas that benefit from the growth deals announced last year. The city deals and the devolution process we are engaged in benefit all parts of the UK. I highlight to her the investment this Government are making in transport and in broadband as particularly important in driving growth in rural communities.

Yvonne Fovargue: The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that individual unsecured debt will rise over the next five years by a staggering £360 billion, which is a record 55% of total household income. More people will be thrust into poverty and forced to go to food banks, and that will not be because more of them know about them or that poor people cannot cook. Does the Chief Secretary agree with the Chancellor that the best way to reduce his borrowing is to increase everyone else’s debts?

Danny Alexander: That same economic forecast suggests that an extra 1 million people will be in work from the record levels that we have at the moment; that there will be a consistent rise in real incomes over the next five years; and that the United Kingdom has the strongest economic growth of any developed country in the world and the strongest job creation. Those are the facts about the United Kingdom and the hon. Lady should welcome them.

Mark Menzies: May I put it on the record that I support the Government’s drive to create a northern powerhouse? What assurances can the Chief Secretary give me that constituencies such as my own in Fylde will benefit from such a move?

Danny Alexander: I can honestly say to my hon. Friend that his constituency will benefit. It has already benefited from the growth deals, and it is benefiting from investment in energy infrastructure, which is a particular interest there. It is also benefiting from the transport investment, and as we take forward this agenda to improve the economy in the north of England, we will ensure that every part of the north of England, including his constituency, benefits from that process.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Was the Chief Secretary as alarmed as I was by this morning’s comments by the Northern Ireland Attorney-General that the Royal Bank of Scotland has been involved in “criminal fraud” with regard to its banking treatment of those who fell behind in their mortgages? If that is the case,
	will he make a statement to the House, telling us how he intends to deal with the matter so that we can bring back certainty to customers?

Andrea Leadsom: This Government take very seriously any accusations of wrongdoing by the banks. We will be looking at this case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those comments have been strongly denied by RBS, and we will certainly be taking advice on the matter and looking into it carefully and taking appropriate action.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) would have been called earlier, but she was not here. She is now, and she can have a go if she prefers asking a question to talking to a Government Whip, albeit a distinguished Government Whip.

Jennifer Willott: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and my apologies. I wanted to ask about tax avoidance. At a time of falling incomes when many people are finding it difficult to make ends meet, does the Minister agree that those on high incomes should avoid using expensive lawyers—if they can afford to use them—to assist with tax avoidance? Does he share my hope that tax avoidance, like drink-driving, will become a moral taboo?

Danny Alexander: I agree with my hon. Friend. This Government have taken consistent action to tackle tax avoidance and to reduce tax evasion, raising billions of pounds to help avoid some of the pressures to which she refers. Dodging taxes is as morally reprehensible as claiming the wrong benefits or doing what she described. Those are all things that we, as a society, want to see stopped, and the Government are taking action to see that they are.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On infrastructure spending, the Government’s claims earlier this year that flood defence spending had increased were rubbished
	not by insignificant people but by Sir Andrew Dilnot, chair of the UK Statistics Authority, the Channel 4 “FactCheck” programme and many others. On that basis, what confidence can we have that spending on flood defence will increase, when it went down £200 million in the first four years of this Government?

Danny Alexander: This Government’s investment in flood-risk management has increased in real terms by 5% compared with spending in the previous five years. We will be spending more than £5.2 billion over the course of this Parliament on flood and erosion risk management compared with £2.7 billion in the previous five years. That is a record of which I am proud.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am sorry but demand always exceeds supply. Last but not least, Stuart Andrew.

Stuart Andrew: As my right hon. Friend heard earlier, there is currently a connectivity study on Leeds Bradford International airport. As someone who has been campaigning for that rail link, because the road network is always so congested, may I urge him to look at that study in great detail, as it will help us to contribute to that great economic powerhouse in the north?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of the study. We noted it in the national infrastructure plan as something that has produced some new arguments about that link. Clearly, the case must be developed locally, given the more devolved framework in which we are now operating. If he wants to join my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) in the meeting that my hon. Friend suggested, I would be delighted to talk to him about how we can take this important project forward.

Points of Order

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are very concerned about good behaviour in this Chamber, but I think you share my view of the importance of good behaviour in Select Committees, too. Is it not time that we had some sort of rules on the use of electronic gizmos in Select Committees? Otherwise, the House of Commons will fall into disrepute if, during an important Work and Pensions Committee hearing, a Member of Parliament is seen to be playing electronic games. Could we make it clear that the use of electronic devices at certain times, both here and in Select Committees, is not appropriate?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, the answer to which is as follows. There are rules on these matters. I think it is fair to say that it is quite within the competence, in the literal sense of that term, of the Chair of the Committee to take charge of the matter and to rule accordingly. Therefore the expression of legitimate interest by a Member of 35 years’ standing in the House is greatly appreciated, but I imagine that although the Chair of the Committee will be encouraged to enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s support, he or she is probably able to handle the matter without further assistance—but the point is on the record, and I thank him.

Stephen Timms: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you assist me in obtaining from the Department for Work and Pensions information which I have been trying to obtain for over a year? In a written answer in March last year, the then Employment Minister told me that the amount of jobseeker’s allowance withheld in fixed sanctions had gone up more than tenfold between the election and October 2012. In October 2012, a new, harsher, sanctions regime was introduced, and I have been trying to obtain an updated answer to my question ever since. I have been given various reasons why the question cannot be answered, none of which I think is convincing. Can you give me advice or assistance in obtaining the information I seek?

Mr Speaker: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman, in his point of order, may be investing me with powers and wisdom that, sadly, the Chair does not possess. I do not think he will object to my communicating to the Chamber the fact that he has sent me a substantial academic essay on the matter, which I had the opportunity this morning to digest. The nub of the matter is that the right hon. Gentleman received what he regarded as a more expansive and informative answer to a previous question; he is now displeased that, on tabling a similar question and
	seeking that greater elaboration, it is being denied to him. Sadly, it is not within the power of the Chair to prescribe the level of expansiveness of ministerial replies.
	I can say only two things: first, Ministers should attend to the terms of the question and seek to inform, rather than to avoid informing; and secondly, the right hon. Gentleman is both a doughty fighter and a cerebral character, so he will know that there are many ways of achieving one’s objective. If seeking the information through written answers does not avail him, he can always seek an Adjournment debate on the matter, and the ballot being operated in the Speaker’s Office might yield fruit for the right hon. Gentleman. We will leave it there for now.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are an avid listener to everything that happens in this place, and you will, like me, have noticed that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that he only believes in collective responsibility a little bit, and it is pretty evident that it might not last until May. Would you, Mr Speaker, find the appropriate words to describe what is happening to the Government? Do you, like me, think that the Lib Dems are preparing to leave the Government before May and the general election, or do you think they are going to hang on? Do you, the Speaker, have any responsibility for people who do not really believe in Government, but do so only a little bit? Can the Speaker comment? You have access to all those wonderful words, so I give you a chance.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In the run-up to elections there tends to be a degree of spontaneous creativity on the part of individual members of different parties. My first point to the hon. Gentleman is that there is a coalition Government; it is somewhat different from previous animals. My second point is that the hon. Gentleman ought to know me well enough to know that my ambitions do not stretch to a detailed interpretation of ministerial nuance. My preoccupation is with Arsenal playing Galatasaray tonight. The third point I would make to the hon. Gentleman on the strength of my respect for his 44 years’ uninterrupted service in the House is that on Sunday afternoon I hugely enjoyed finishing reading his autobiography, and shortly my copy will wing its way to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that he might be gracious enough to sign it for me.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In my question to the Treasury I may have inadvertently named the Royal Bank of Scotland instead of the Bank of Scotland, and I would like to set the record straight.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has achieved his objective, and we are grateful to him.

Funeral Services

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Emma Lewell-Buck: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of funeral affordability and costs; to require the providers of funeral services to offer a simple funeral service; to require the Secretary of State to make certain arrangements relating to funeral payments; and for connected purposes.
	Losing a loved one can be one of the most devastating experiences we face. Everyone who loses someone close to them wants to give them a decent send-off, but sadly fewer and fewer people are now able to afford even a basic funeral. We do not hear a lot about this problem: because of its deeply personal nature, funeral poverty remains taboo. Today I am proposing measures to end that taboo and to ensure that no one has to endure the agony of worrying about funeral costs at the same time as grieving.
	A report released this month by Royal London shows that of the 500,000 families who are bereaved each year, one fifth struggle to afford the cost of a funeral. This is a problem that will only get worse, as the price of a service is accelerating far faster than inflation. Royal London’s research shows that the average cost is now £3,551 pounds, nearly twice the level of a decade ago. Depending on where someone lives, and the availability of burial space, costs can approach £7,000. The rising cost of a service, alongside squeezed household incomes and a failing system of state support, means that many people have to borrow from friends or family, sell possessions or take on credit card or payday loan debt to make up the shortfall. This often means finding themselves in serious financial difficulty.
	One woman from my area approached the citizens advice bureau with unmanageable debts. She had been unable to get the money together to pay for a headstone for her brother’s grave. She ended up applying for a payday loan, and the cost of repaying this debt quickly got out of control. Sadly, her story is not an isolated one. Royal London estimates that 110,000 people are living with funeral debt, with each person owing over £1,300 on average. People are also turning to alternatives to the traditional funeral. Some are holding do-it-yourself funerals, and even having to bury relatives in their back garden. A number of companies are offering cut-price funerals, including “direct” cremations that have no formal service attached to them.
	Increasingly, bereaved individuals who simply cannot afford a formal service are faced with having to opt for a public health funeral, or what used to be referred to as a pauper’s funeral. When nobody else is able to take responsibility for handling a person’s remains, the local authority has to step in. People have no control over the service, and of course there is a cost to the local authority as well.
	My Bill has two main objectives. The first is to identify ways of reducing funeral costs by requiring the Secretary of State to conduct an over-arching review of funeral affordability in the UK. The second is to take immediate steps to help hard-pressed households facing funeral poverty, via specific measures to reform the
	funeral payments social fund system, and by introducing a simple funeral. The reason for an overarching review is the huge number of factors that contribute to rising funeral costs. We need to consider the amount of burial space available, how deaths are registered, the impact of competition between private and local authority crematoria, and the benefits system that supports those who are unable to afford a service. Addressing affordability will require careful thought and collaboration between several Departments, so the issue needs cross-departmental consideration.
	The review would need input from those working in the funeral sector. Funeral directors, for example, are seeing their costs rise because of flaws in the funeral payment system. The amount that can be awarded towards what are called “other funeral expenses”, which include directors’ fees, is capped at £700. This amount was set more than a decade ago and has not risen with inflation, so it has not kept up with funeral directors’ own costs. This means that directors are seeing customers who cannot pay the full cost of a service.
	The National Association of Funeral Directors tells me that many of its members are now offering funerals on credit, with no guarantee that the client will be able to pay back the full amount. Even those who can pay face the difficulty of having to return to their funeral director every week to pay back the cost of the funeral in instalments. This is unsustainable, it is awful for those families, it puts businesses at risk and it can lead to higher charges, which are eventually passed on to customers. This is just one example of a serious flaw in the funeral market, and that is why the review proposed in the Bill would need to include consultation with funeral directors, local authorities and other interested parties to look at affordability as a whole.
	Outside the overarching review there are measures that could make a difference to funeral poverty right now. The state support available through social fund funeral payments is long overdue for reform. These are payments available through the Department for Work and Pensions, which are supposed to help those on low incomes with the cost of a funeral, but the system does not function well and even encourages some households to get into debt. Applications are lengthy and confusing, especially for someone who is just bereaved, and the outcome may take 17 days. The DWP requires an invoice to process a claim, which means that people who want to arrange a funeral quickly must agree their costs before they know whether they qualify for help. This is worrying when we know that 50% of claims are rejected—about 30,000 a year. These people will have bought a funeral service under the impression that they qualify for help, only to be rejected and left with thousands of pounds of costs that they cannot pay.
	Changes to the way the system is run, such as removing the requirement for an invoice, could reduce the number of rejected claims, by allowing people to check their eligibility before they commit to funeral costs. This would help them make a more informed decision about the kind of funeral they can afford, and it would help them avoid debt. The DWP needs to look at how it could streamline the way such claims are processed so that decisions are made more quickly.
	The second measure is the creation of a “simple funeral”, which would help people buying a service to understand how much they can expect to pay, and help
	them make sure they do not pay more than they should. At present many people do not have a good idea of how much a funeral should cost, and this measure would help them make a judgment about the kind of service they want. Funeral directors would be required to let people know how much a simple service would cost if it was bought through them. This would not stop people choosing the service they want; it would just be a clear, easily understandable option available if they wanted it. A simple funeral is already offered by many funeral directors. It helps people make an important decision at a difficult time in their lives, and it helps them choose a funeral that is affordable and right for them. It should be available to everyone.
	These measures could make an immediate difference to the households that already struggle with funeral poverty, but the motion needs to be the start of a bigger conversation about how we plan for the future. We need to talk about addressing a failing benefits system, a lack of burial space, and challenges facing the sector overall. But we also want to encourage members of the public to have conversations about planning for the future and how to make sure that there is money set aside to pay for their funeral. I understand that these are difficult conversations, but they are important ones, and I hope that today’s motion can break the silence on funeral poverty. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Steve Rotheram, Ian Mearns, Julie Hilling, Meg Munn, Pat Glass, Ian Lucas, Andy McDonald, Mr David Anderson, Graeme Morrice, Jim Shannon and Sir Peter Bottomley present the Bill.
	Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 January 2015 and to be printed (Bill 133).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, HC 838; written evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 838; oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 November 2014, on counter-terrorism and human rights; written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on counter-terrorism and human rights, reported to the House on 26 November 2014, HC 836; oral evidence taken before the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 3 December 2014, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill; and written evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, reported to the House on 3 December 2014, HC 859.]
	Considered in Committee

[Dame Dawn Primarolo in the Chair]

Clause 12
	 — 
	TPIMs: overnight residence measure

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 4, onpage8,line11,leave out subsection (3).
	This would remove the 200-mile limit on the Home Secretary’s ability to relocate people.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clauses 12 and 13 stand part.
	Amendment 7, in clause14,page9,line33,at end insert—
	‘6B Regulated Activity Measure
	(1) The Secretary of State may impose on the individual restrictions on taking part in regulated activity relating to—
	(a) vulnerable adults;
	(b) children; or
	(c) both.
	(2) In this section “Regulated Activity” is as defined in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Act 2006.’.
	This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to prevent an individual on a TPIM working (including voluntary work) with children or vulnerable adults or both.
	Clause 14 stand part.
	Amendment 6, in clause15,page10,line8,at end insert—
	‘(3) Appointments required under subsection (1) may include appointments with persons involved in delivering programmes established under Part 5, Chapter 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2014.’.
	This amendment would make clear that the Secretary of State can instruct an individual on a TPIM to attend de-radicalisation programmes.
	Clauses 15 and 16 stand part.

Diana Johnson: Part 2 of the Bill relates to terrorism prevention and investigation measures. This grouping includes clauses 12 to 16 as well as Labour’s amendments,
	so I intend to use my contribution to address all the issues concerning TPIMs in part 2. The amendments are all probing, as we are broadly supportive of the changes the clauses introduce, especially the U-turn on relocation powers, which clause 12 reintroduces.
	The Home Secretary introduced TPIMs in the first Session of this Parliament to replace Labour’s control orders. She claimed at the time that that was a fundamental rebalancing of security and liberty. In fact, there were only two major differences between control orders and TPIMs, or control orders-lite, as they have been called: the relocation power and the two-year limit. She also said that she had been forced to introduce TPIMs because too many control orders were being challenged in the courts. Although judicial oversight was of course a key element of the control orders regime, the courts had continued to find that control orders, including the power to relocate, were both necessary and proportionate in a number of cases, included all those that were later transferred to TPIMs.
	I think that every Member of this House would agree that it is always better to prosecute individuals, wherever possible, for terrorist offences. No one wants TPIMs or control orders; we would all much rather see prosecutions for those involved in terrorism activity. However, in a very small number of cases evidence is inadmissible, for example because it would compromise security, and therefore prosecutions cannot be brought. That means we need an alternative measure to deal with the threat those individuals pose.

Caroline Lucas: Does the hon. Lady recognise that TPIMs have never led to a terrorism-related prosecution and that they are therefore not only against human rights, but counter-productive and ineffective?

Diana Johnson: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will move on to that point shortly, because one of the claims that the Government made was that the new regime would lead to more prosecutions.
	It is worth remembering that we are talking about a very small number of individuals, but they pose a serious danger to the public and we need some powers to manage that risk. David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has made it clear that those who are subject to TPIM notices are accused of terrorist activities
	“at the highest end of seriousness, even by the standards of international terrorism.”
	TPIMs are a set of restrictions imposed on an individual who is suspected of, but has not been convicted for, involvement in terrorism. A TPIM order, like a control order, is imposed at the behest of the Home Secretary, with judicial oversight, but can be appealed to the High Court, which must find that the TPIM and all the measures it includes are both necessary and proportionate.
	When the Government scrapped the control order regime, they argued that their new regime would allow more suspects to be prosecuted—this relates to the point just made by the hon. Lady. The Security Minister has repeatedly said that the aim of the regime was to secure more prosecutions and that extra resources were being provided to achieve that. I wonder whether he could confirm today exactly how many successful
	prosecutions for terrorist-related activity there have been for individuals on TPIMs. Like the hon. Lady, I understand that there has not been one successful such prosecution. David Anderson has commented that the TPIMs regime has not aided the prosecution of individuals, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has stated that it
	“failed to find any evidence that TPIMs have led in practice to any more criminal prosecutions of terrorism suspects.”
	All three of the prosecutions attempted in 2012 for breaching the conditions of TPIM orders collapsed. When Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed absconded, he had just answered bail on 20 charges relating to breaches of his TPIM. Some of those breaches lay on the file for 18 months. Given that prosecutions were meant to be a priority, as the Government had said on numerous occasions, perhaps the Minister can explain why he thinks there was such a delay in taking that case to court and whether the Government actually opposed Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed being granted bail. Will he also confirm how he believes the changes proposed in part 2 will deliver what he had attempted to do when the TPIMs regime first came in—secure more prosecutions?
	The number of people on TPIMs, as with control orders, has remained very small, but they are believed to pose a serious threat. There were nine people on the control orders regime when it ended in January 2012, all of whom were British citizens, and the Crown Prosecution Service has consistently said that none of them could be prosecuted. All those individuals were transferred to TPIM orders, and another individual was subsequently put on a TPIM order. We believe that there is currently just one person on a TPIM order. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that when he speaks.
	There are other concerns about the TPIMs regime. In January 2014, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:
	“We are left with the impression that in practice TPIMs may be withering on the vine as a counter-terrorism tool of practical utility”.
	I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those comments and how he feels that part 2 will deal with some of the criticisms raised.
	I now turn to clause 12 and the issue of relocation, and amendment 4. As I said, the key difference between control orders and the TPIMs regime was the power of relocation, which was removed. It is helpful to give specific examples of how the relocation power was used under the control orders regime and the effects of the changes introduced by the coalition through the TPIMs legislation.
	I want to refer to two particular cases, the first of which is that of Ibrahim Magag. Magag is a British national with links to Somalia. He was previously known as BX. He was first placed on a control order in October 2009, when Lord Justice Collins ruled:
	“it is too dangerous to permit him to be in London even for a short period”.
	Magag was a member of a UK-based network linked to terrorism in east Africa, as was the other person I want to comment on, Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed. According to High Court papers from 2010, Mr Magag had a history of tampering with his monitoring equipment and lying about why he was late reporting home for
	night-time curfew, and he had used a computer in breach of the terms of an order designed to protect national security. Despite this, the surveillance of Magag seems to have been fairly lax. He was able to abscond simply by getting into a black cab on Boxing day 2011, and has not been seen since. He started off on a control order that included the relocation power, was moved on to a TPIM, and managed to disappear.
	Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed is also a British citizen with links to Somalia. He was previously known as CC, and is closely associated with fellow TPIM suspect CF. When he was first placed on a control order, the judge described the national security case against him as “overwhelming”. Mohamed was first placed on a control order by the current Home Secretary, and that included a relocation provision. A year later, James Eadie QC, acting for the Home Secretary, argued:
	“Notwithstanding that CC and CF have now been subject to controls for longer than a year, it cannot be said that either of them has renounced his commitment to terrorism, nor has the passage of time significantly diminished the risk they present.”
	Mohamed absconded by putting on a burqa while inside a mosque, where he also apparently removed his tag. He had a long history of tampering with his G4S-provided tag. On the morning before he absconded, he had appeared in court charged with 20 counts of tampering with the tag and breaching the terms of his order. Despite this, he was granted bail and does not appear to have been under any direct surveillance. It now also seems that the Home Office had neglected to seize Mohamed’s British passport when he was placed on a TPIM, despite this being the normal practice. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Charles Farr, Home Office director of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, said:
	“when a TPIM is issued it is standard practice for the subject of the TPIM to have his passport withdrawn and it is surrendered to the police and held by the police. In this particular case, an assumption was incorrectly made that that had happened in the case of Mr Mohammed.”
	When the Government introduced TPIMs, they removed the relocation provision, against the advice of many learned individuals, including the former Conservative Home Secretary, the noble Lord Howard, who said:
	“If you ask me my personal view…I would have preferred the relocation provisions to have remained.”
	Lord Carlile QC, the Liberal Democrat peer and former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said:
	“With my experience from the beginning of control orders until early this year, I wonder why we are troubling to replace a functioning system with another that has almost entirely the same arms, body and legs, but…there is one leg missing from the Bill, and for now, in my view, it gives this legislation a distinct limp. It is the continuing power to order relocation, subject, of course, to the usual court procedures. On the evidence available, I am persuaded firmly—I choose my words carefully—to the view that it would be negligent to remove relocation from the main provisions.”
	He went on to say that the fact that
	“Magag did not abscond while subject to a judicially approved relocation order, and that he absconded when that was removed, is in itself clear evidence of the poor decision to remove relocation orders…nobody absconded while subject to a relocation order.”
	David Anderson QC said:
	“The possibility of relocation has now been removed. That step was not required by the courts…which had indeed shown themselves generally supportive of relocation as a deterrent to”
	terrorist-related activity. In his annual report on terrorism in 2011, he said of relocation:
	“those changes…are unlikely to further the requirements of national security—rather the reverse.”
	When Stuart Osborne, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police and senior national co-ordinator for terrorism investigations at the Association of Chief Police Officers, gave evidence to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill Committee, he said:
	“Previously, with relocation, it was easy to identify the environment in which associations may happen. If a lot of people who are on the orders live in one close environment, managing that and looking at those associations is potentially more difficult.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 4, Q3.]
	He went on to say:
	“The relocation issue has been very useful for us being able to monitor and enforce at the current time. Without that relocation, and depending on where people choose to live, that could be significantly more difficult.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 5, Q10.]
	Labour opposed removing the relocation element from the TPIMs regime. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, made a powerful case for its retention, as did several other right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), a former counter-terrorism Minister and a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee; my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), a former Home Office Minister and member of the ISC; and the late Paul Goggins, another former Home Office Minister and member of the ISC. They all recognised that relocation is important because TPIM suspects tend to be facilitators and organisers, and the danger they pose is diminished by removing them from their networks. Once individuals return to London, it is impossible to monitor all their contacts. That makes absconding more likely, as shown by the cases of Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, as well as involvement in terrorist planning.
	Let us be clear about this: no individual absconded while subject to a relocation order. The Minister might say that in the early days of control orders there were cases of absconding, and that is correct, but at that time relocation was not part of the control orders regime.
	In a letter to the Home Secretary dated 12 November 2013, the shadow Home Secretary said:
	“No terror suspect under a relocation order ever managed to abscond. Now two terror suspects who were previously relocated and then returned because of your decision have absconded. Your decision, against advice and warnings, to end relocations has made it much easier for two dangerous men to disappear.”
	She continued:
	“You told Parliament explicitly that under the new regime, ‘forcible relocation will be ended…They will have greater freedom to associate’.
	In Parliament you argued the purpose of TPIMs was about ‘re-striking the balance between national security and civil liberties’. You also claimed that TPIMs would allow suspects to ‘take part in what is regarded as normal activity’ through a system that ‘clearly provides no power for individuals to be relocated to another part of the country’.
	After the absconding of Ibrahim Magag, you said to MPs ‘I am confident in the TPIM package that was available—the TPIM measures plus the extra resources’. You were also asked seven times whether removing relocation had weakened the controls, and seven times you defended the regime.”
	She concluded:
	“As a consequence of your decision, Mr Mohamed’s family have said: ‘It was a lot worse when he [Mr Mohamed] was on a control order’, said a close relative. ‘They used to follow him. But now [under a TPIM] it was more laid-back.’ So laid-back that he and his associate Ibrahim Magag, have both been able to easily abscond.”
	We therefore very much welcome the reintroduction of relocation in clause 12, which amends the overnight residence measure and allows the Home Secretary to require individuals to live in a residence and locality in the United Kingdom that she considers appropriate. I want to ask the Minister a few questions about the clause.
	Clause 12 amends paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 to provide that the Secretary of State may either agree with an individual a locality in which that individual must reside or require an individual to live in a residence in a locality that the Secretary of State otherwise considers appropriate. If there are premises that are the individual’s own residence at the time when the TPIM notice is imposed, the Secretary of State may require the individual to live in a residence that is more than 200 miles from those premises only if the individual agrees. Clause 12(5) provides that the specified residence may be provided by the Secretary of State, but there is no requirement that it must be.
	I wonder if the Minister can help me with a few issues. We have established that, in essence, the clause restores a power of relocation to the TPIM regime, for which Labour and others have been calling for several years. We accept that the Government have reintroduced a relocation power, but, under the clause as drafted, the individual can be sent either to an agreed locality or, if they do not agree, to a locality that is up to 200 miles from their residence.
	Do the Government now accept that TPIMs without relocation powers were of limited value? Why have they decided to make this decision at this time when, as I have said, it appears that only one person is currently subject to a TPIM order? Is the Minister concerned about other people whom he thinks should be relocated? If so, why are they not already subject to the existing TPIMs legislation? We know that TPIMs are imposed only when there is specific intelligence—hard evidence—that the person is a threat. They are not a general power to be used as and when we choose; they are specific and we recognise the importance of getting this right. Why is this change required now? What has happened to make the Minister feel that he needs to reintroduce the measure?
	The Minister has said that additional resources would be made available under the TPIMs regime because of the additional surveillance activity that would have to be carried out when relocation was not available. Have the costs of that surveillance become prohibitive, and is that why the Minister is moving towards relocation?

James Brokenshire: indicated dissent.

Diana Johnson: The Minister is shaking his head. It would be interesting to hear his views about the resources available to carry out surveillance and what additional resources might be needed for the relocation power proposed in the Bill.
	I want to turn to the practical issues involved when someone is subject to a TPIM, and where they would actually live. Clause 12 allows for the Secretary of State to provide a residence, but there is no requirement. Presumably, the Home Secretary would find somewhere for an individual to live if they did not have a place to stay. What would be a local authority’s responsibilities if there was a power of relocation several miles away from where the individual usually resides? Would local councils have a responsibility to provide accommodation? What standard of accommodation would the Minister expect to be provided to somebody subject to a TPIM relocation order? What type of accommodation would it be? Would the Home Secretary consider a prison to be a suitable place to accommodate an individual? If the individual lives in the private rented sector, who would meet the costs of that accommodation? Would the individual be able to make a claim for and obtain housing benefit? Concerns have also been raised in the past about immediate close family members, including children, young children, husbands and wives. Would accommodation be provided for them?
	Our amendment 4 seeks to probe the 200-mile limit on the Home Secretary’s ability to relocate people. Why has the Minister chosen 200 miles, which is an arbitrary figure? What if the person subject to a TPIM order lived in Newcastle and the suitable accommodation that the Home Office had available was in Cornwall, which is more than 200 miles away? What does the Minister think about the practicalities of a 200-mile limit?
	There is no requirement for the Home Secretary to agree a locality, but the courts may determine whether the Home Secretary has acted proportionately if the individual requests a locality and the Home Secretary disregards it. That locality agreement is not in the Bill, so will the Minister explain why not? Will he also address the issue of compensation, which has been raised in one of Liberty’s briefings? It is concerned that where a relocation order may be quashed, a compensation claim could be payable. Does the Minister believe that to be correct, and could it actually happen?
	Clause 13(1) and (2) amend section 2 of the TPIMs Act to provide that the Secretary of State must publish factors that he or she considers are appropriate to take into account when deciding whether to impose restrictions under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the TPIMs Act. Factors could include proximity to airports, prohibited associates and other TPIM subjects, and the variety and number of services within the restricted area. Clause 13(3) and (4) amend section 23 of the TPIMs Act, which makes it an offence, without reasonable excuse, to contravene a measure. Clause 13(3) provides that an individual subject to a travel measure under paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the TPIMs Act who leaves or travels outside the United Kingdom will not be able to rely upon a defence of “reasonable excuse”.
	Why has the Minister decided to remove the defence of “reasonable excuse” at this point? It seems that that should have been done some time ago, as it is very hard
	to leave the country without meaning to do so. Will the Minister explain why that was not in the original legislation before everyone started to abscond? I hope I am correct in thinking that the ability to claim “reasonable excuse” still applies for a person who has to travel within the UK if, for example, there is a family emergency, such as a child being taken seriously ill. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
	Clause 13(4) increases the custodial penalty on conviction on indictment of contravening the travel measure from a term not exceeding five years’ imprisonment to one not exceeding 10 years. Liberty said in its briefing:
	“Criminalisation of those that breach an Executive imposed civil sanction turns our justice system on its head.”
	Will the Minister respond to that point?
	Clause 13(5) amends paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the TPIMs Act. Under the travel measure in the Act, the Secretary of State may impose restrictions on a person to prevent them from leaving a specified area, which could be Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. That change allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on an individual to prevent them from leaving a specified area, which may be either the United Kingdom or any area within the United Kingdom, in which the individual’s place of residence is located. The restrictions imposed may include a requirement not to leave a specified area without receiving permission from or, as the case may be, giving notice to the Secretary of State.
	We accept that the travel restriction seems sensible, but there is no point in moving someone from east London to Norwich or Ipswich if they can return to east London every day, so it is important that the Bill state how specific an area the provision will apply to. Will the Minister explain how the restriction will work? What size and type of travel restriction will be used? Will the restriction be on leaving an area as small as a village, or will it be a bigger geographical area, such as a town or even a county?
	Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to impose on an individual subject to a TPIM notice prohibitions on making an application for a firearm or shotgun certificate, or on possessing an imitation firearm, offensive weapons or explosives. That all seems sensible, and many people will be surprised to find that that has to be set out in the Bill. They would be concerned because it seems strange for those subject to TPIMs to be able to apply to their local police force for firearms and shotgun licences.
	In its brief, Liberty states:
	“It is entirely sensible that people the authorities suspect of involvement in terrorism do not have access to firearms but it is also a revealing indictment of the internal chaos of the regime and lack of monitoring that the Home Secretary fears a firearms certificate may be granted by police.”
	Will the Minister share with the Committee why that issue has arisen? Have people subject to TPIMs been trying to obtain firearms licences from police forces up and down the land? It would be helpful if the Committee understood what information police forces have access to. Does a firearms licensing officer know whether someone applying for a licence is subject to a TPIM? Is that information on the police national computer? How does a police officer or firearms licensing officer find out about that person’s background?
	I assumed that it was an offence to possess explosives and offensive weapons, so I wonder why that has to be spelled out in this part of the Bill. Is a person subject to a TPIM who has access to kitchen knives in their residence—a kitchen knife that someone takes out of a residence and carries around could be seen as an offensive weapon—in breach of their TPIM under the clause? I want to be clear about that because the provision may be confusing and worrying for members of the public.
	Our amendment 7 relates to activities that can be undertaken by a person subject to a TPIM. The Minister is likely to say that the change on firearms has to be spelled out because it is being added to an exhaustive list. The amendment would give the Home Secretary another power on the exhaustive list to prevent a person subject to a TPIM from having access to children, young people or vulnerable adults by making such access a regulated activity.
	The Disclosure and Barring Service makes sure that people who are a threat or a concern to the authorities cannot have access to children, young people or vulnerable adults in a school setting or a regulated activity. Does the Minister think it appropriate for a TPIM suspect to apply to be a school governor, and should the DBS have a view about that? Equally, is it appropriate for a TPIM suspect to volunteer at a youth club, youth centre or school? Should the DBS have access to information about whether someone is subject to a TPIM? Exactly what information about a TPIM is flagged up to the DBS: is it given that specific information, or is it referred to an officer in one of the counter-terrorism units around the country?
	People will be interested in that matter, especially whether those on TPIMs can have access to schools and youth clubs. In fact, should schools and youth clubs be made aware that such a person should not volunteer or work with young people? That all relates to amendment 7, which is a probing amendment.

Ian Swales: I am certainly not an expert on this area, but is the shadow Minister suggesting that an organisation’s standard Criminal Records Bureau check fails to pick up the people to whom she is referring?

Diana Johnson: That is the very question I am asking. The Disclosure and Barring Service obviously keeps records of people who should not have access to children in a regulated activity, such as working as a teacher in a school. However, because of the coalition’s changes, volunteering at a school is not considered a regulated activity, so no information would necessarily be given by the DBS. Most people would be concerned if someone subject to a TPIM had access to young people. Will the Minister help us to be clear about what exactly that means?
	Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings with such persons as the Secretary of State may specify, at such locations and at such times as the Secretary of State may by notice require. The specified persons may choose the time and place of the meeting.
	We think that clause 15 is rather vague and very broad, and we have tabled a probing amendment. Amendment 6 is designed to tie down the clause on the specific issue of Channel—the de-radicalisation programme —which we will come on to later. It is important that
	the Secretary of State can make people attend Channel meetings and appointments, and possibly those relating to other parts of the Prevent programme. The probing amendment is an attempt to tease out exactly what such appointments are about. We certainly think that the appointments such a person is required to attend should cover the Channel and Prevent programmes.
	Clause 16(1) amends section 3(1) of the TPIM Act so that, to meet condition A, the Secretary of State must be
	“satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,”
	that an individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. That changes the current wording for the test under condition A, which is that
	“the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.
	As I have set out at great length, the Secretary of State spent four years arguing that relocation was unnecessary and impossible, because courts kept overruling it. We know that the independent reviewers of terrorism legislation have always taken a different view on that point. The relocation power is now being reintroduced, and the Home Secretary has toughened up the test.
	I want to make it clear that Opposition Members have always been comfortable with having robust oversight of TPIMs, because we think that good and strong evidence—such evidence ensures that TPIMs are used only in exceptional cases—would pass the test the Home Secretary is now introducing in clause 16. It is important not only to have such a test, but to continue to have judicial oversight so that TPIMs are always considered in the courts.
	Finally, clause 16(2) amends section 4 of the TPIMs Act so that, for the purposes of that Act,
	“involvement in terrorism-related activity does not include conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the individual concerned to be involved in conduct which facilitates or gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, or which is intended to do so.”
	Will the Minister explain why he feels that measure is appropriate at this time? Most people would be surprised to hear that somebody who is involved in supporting and assisting terrorism-related activity might not be subject to a TPIM.
	Those are all my remarks on part 2 of the Bill.

Caroline Lucas: I will say only a few words, but I want to explain why I will not support amendment 4.
	My opposition to TPIMs and their predecessors, control orders, is on the record. The latest proposals do nothing to address my long-held concerns. The measures before us will take us back in time to when the Secretary of State could require an individual to live in a residence and locality in the UK that he or she considered appropriate. That was a feature of the previous Administration that was abandoned by the current Home Secretary for good reasons. She has now taken a step backwards. Given that these measures will make it possible for individuals to be removed from their families and communities and placed, effectively, in isolation, I do not share the pleasure that is apparent on the Opposition Front Bench, nor the view of the Opposition that it is acceptable to allow people to be relocated without any limit on the distance.
	The courts have ruled on a number of occasions that internal exile, in conjunction with the imposition of other restrictions, constitutes a violation of article 5 of the European convention on human rights. That stands whether someone is relocated 50 miles, 150 miles or 250 miles away from their home. In one case, Mr Justice Mitting ruled that, on the basis of evidence provided by the wife of the individual who was subject to a control order, the threat that the detainee posed would be reduced if he were able to remain with his family. That brings us to the crux of the matter. There is not a scrap of evidence that such a brutal and punitive regime plays a role in countering terrorism. In fact, it may well be counter-productive.
	When a suspect is subjected to a TPIM, it tips them off, making it much more difficult to gather evidence of terrorism-related activity. TPIMs exacerbate the potential for increased alienation and radicalisation, because they can be made against those who pose no direct threat to the British public. Moreover, as Liberty and others have reported, and as the shadow Minister just said, TPIMs have never led to a terrorism-related prosecution. If the purpose of such proposals is to counter terrorism and make us more secure, TPIMs have little to recommend them and neither did control orders before them. I believe that we should move forward, rather than take a step backwards, as the amendment would have us do.
	Clause 13 removes the defence of a reasonable excuse for those who breach a TPIM and leave the UK. The measures in the Bill undermine some of the basic tenets of our justice system. Clause 13 will allow for somebody to be imprisoned for up to 10 years for breaching a TPIM, even though a TPIM can be imposed without any need for them to be arrested, charged or convicted for a terrorism offence. In other words, it will allow somebody to be criminalised and locked up for 10 years for breaching a civil sanction. That move will turn our justice system on its head. It is at odds with everything we ought to hold dear. I hope that Members will not stand by and let such a draconian measure pass.
	One former Law Lord, referring to the control order regime, said:
	“They are, and always have been, a blot on our jurisprudence.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 March 2010; Vol. 717, c. 1528.]
	That criticism stands, with or without the changes that have been outlined today. I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is advocating more of what Justice calls
	“an ineffective and draconian diversion from prosecution of criminal behaviour.”

Pete Wishart: These are terrible amendments. They are so sadly and typically new Labour. The control order regime was the centrepiece of what is commonly described as the new Labour anti-civil libertarian state. It had all the usual new Labour features: suspicion, restrictions without trial and sweeping powers for the Secretary of State to make up her mind about convictions. New Labour was always on the wrong side of the crucial balance between making our nation safe through security-related legislation and upholding civil liberties. The control order regime was part of the central agenda that new Labour constructed, which included the suggestion that suspects should be locked up for 90 days without trial, ID cards and
	national databases. Under new Labour, we became probably the most restrictive, anti-civil libertarian state anywhere in the European Union.
	As Members have said, there have been no prosecutions of people on control orders or TPIMs. That suggests that they are either really good or really rubbish. I supported the Conservatives when they moved against control orders. They did the right thing in abolishing control orders. We did not like TPIMs because they had features that were sadly reminiscent of new Labour’s control order regime, but the Conservatives seemed to be rowing back from the anti-civil libertarian state that had been constructed by new Labour and we supported them on that basis.

Khalid Mahmood: Does the hon. Gentleman have an alternative proposal to put to the Committee?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. These measures are counter-productive in trying to make our country safe. All they do is tip people off that there is a particular issue with an individual. If there is a terrorist community, the first thing that they will take note of is the fact that somebody has been the subject of a TPIM or a control order. It alerts them to the fact that something is going on. I am all for making our country safe, but have there been any prosecutions? No.
	The saddest and most bizarre feature of control orders and TPIMs is that they are all about suspicion. There is never enough evidence to test these matters in court, to take them to trial, to have a judge and jury decide whether something is going on. It is all about suspicion. That is the critical feature of TPIMs, as it was of the control order regime. How can anybody try to secure their innocence when they are subject to such measures? They have no opportunity to do so at all. They just have to accept the situation.
	Unfortunately, the relocation measures will bring TPIMs right back to where we were with control orders. That was the defining difference between TPIMs and control orders. It is therefore particularly depressing that relocation is a feature of the new TPIM regime in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will resist Labour’s call to extend the powers further by making relocation even more restrictive and having another list of qualifications in the TPIM regime. I know that he will resist that and ensure that Labour, in its new Labour guise, will not have its way.

Diana Johnson: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He should have listened to what I said, which was that these are probing amendments to allow us fully to understand the Government’s thinking. They are intended not to extend the powers in the Bill, but to seek clarification. I hope that he will take that on board.

Pete Wishart: I am a bit more satisfied, but on the face of it, the amendments do call for further restrictions. If they are just probing amendments, that is fair enough and we will hear the Minister’s response. Regardless of whether the amendments are probing or active, I hope that he is not convinced to back anything that Labour is suggesting, because that would make matters worse.
	It seems to me that the Labour leopard has not changed its new Labour, anti-civil libertarian spots. Labour still wants further restrictions. It still wants the Government to go further, despite the critical balancing act that we always have to consider between the necessary steps to keep our nation safe and the civil liberties that we cherish and value in a democracy. New Labour got the balance drastically, appallingly wrong. Unfortunately, the Conservatives are moving on to that territory once again. I hope that the amendments are resisted. I understand that they are just probing amendments, and that is fine, but I hope that the Minister will not be probed into accepting what is being suggested by the Labour party.

Ian Swales: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he remember that the previous Government introduced a raft of new offences under terrorism legislation, and therefore the gap that TPIMs or control orders are there to fill should be, and indeed has proved to be, negligible? Are they needed at all?

Pete Wishart: I think I took part in practically all the debates in this House on these issues—indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I would have sat on the same Benches when arguing against what new Labour was trying to create with these measures. He is right: are such measures necessary? One individual in the country is subject to a TPIM, yet we are discussing the issue in Parliament and ensuring that what will probably be expensive resources are allocated to ensure that this new restrictive measure goes through. Is it worthwhile?
	I do not like TPIMs—the Minister knows that—and I disliked control orders even more. Are they necessary? I suspect not. Do they do anything to make our nation safe? No, they do not. Should we be doing other things to make our country safe? Yes, we should, but unfortunately no amendment has been tabled that will deal with those issues. I hope that the Minister is not in the mood to accept Labour’s suggestions—

James Brokenshire: indicated dissent.

Pete Wishart: I see by his response that he is not. I hope the amendments are rejected and that in future we do something that will make our country safe without having to resort to measures such as TPIMs.

George Howarth: I wish to take slight issue with the hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The hon. Gentleman’s speech seemed to play to a particular event that will take place over the next few months in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and it was more about distancing the Scottish National party from the position taken by Labour. That is fair enough; he is entitled to do that but he seemed to be putting rather more heat than light into the debate. To be slightly more serious—as I am sure he intended to be—the problem with the approach taken by him and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is that they describe a black and white world where either we have the evidence, in which case we go through the court system, prosecute someone and if that is successful they receive an appropriate sentence, or else there is not enough evidence to bring forward a court case so someone is not controlled at all. The difficulty is that the world is not black and white in that way.
	Suppose one of our intelligence agencies has information from a liaison partner—the United States, for example—about somebody’s connections, or plans that they may be involved in with a third party elsewhere in the world to commit an act of terrorism in this country. There is a problem with taking such a case through the courts because the information it is based on is governed by the control principle—namely that that information is the property of the other agency, which in this case is in the United States. To allow that information to appear in a court case as evidence would undermine the relationship between the UK and that liaison partner.

Caroline Lucas: rose—

George Howarth: There is an argument against that, which I suspect the hon. Lady is about to make, but an inescapable choice has to be made.

Caroline Lucas: No one is suggesting that the issue is black and white. There are shades of grey and balances of judgment, but the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and I are saying that with TPIMs and control orders, that balance of judgment is wrong. If we look at things such as intercept evidence, we can see that there will be other ways of bringing evidence to bear to help us reach a solution, rather than the draconian and counterproductive measures suggested by those on both Front Benches.

George Howarth: I am interested in the hon. Lady’s intervention. Later in the proceedings we will discuss intercept evidence, although I suspect that she will take an entirely different view on that from me, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and the Minister. I hope to comment on the limitations of intercept evidence because it is not always feasible to rely wholly on evidence that in some cases may not exist. Some people may operate in a world where they are not connected online, and do not make telephone calls or give any indication of their intentions. The obvious example is Roshonara Choudhry who was convicted and is now serving a prison sentence for trying to kill a Member of this House. It would have been impossible to find out through intercept evidence what she was intending to do, so there is not always the possibility of relying on that entirely.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked the Minister a series of questions and I hope he will respond positively. For some people the court system is not appropriate although they are known to be a threat for various reasons, and there must be some way of dealing with that.

James Brokenshire: The contribution by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, encapsulates some of the challenges and difficulties surrounding the principles of this debate. It is notable that contributions over the past hour have been about some of the principal issues concerning the types of measures that should be available to deal with the threat of terrorism, as well as—obviously and rightly—more detailed examination of the Bill.
	We have had this debate on previous occasions, and I respect the view of the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose approach has been entirely consistent. In some cases, however, there will be an inability either to prosecute or deport an individual, yet a significant risk will be attached to them—the point made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. The Government have a responsibility to deal with that risk.
	My strong preference would be for prosecutions—absolutely, there are no two ways about it—but that is not always possible for a range of reasons. That is the challenge the Government face in terms of seeing the threat and the risk, and being able to assure national security, as the public and the House would expect. Therefore, reluctantly, a measure is required, and we judge that TPIMs are the appropriate way to meet that risk and challenge. I would prefer that that were not the case—in that I agree with the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion and for Perth and North Perthshire—but from the intelligence picture that I have seen and the advice I have been given, sadly and regrettably I believe that TPIMs are necessary to be able to guard national security in that way.
	Since April 2010 more than 750 people have been arrested for terrorism-related offences. More than 210 have been charged and more than 140 successfully prosecuted. I say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that the introduction of TPIMs was part of a careful and considered counter-terrorism review. She will recall the debates. Consideration was not rushed, but made on the basis of careful analysis of all counter-terrorism legislation to examine the risk and the threat, and what was appropriate and proportionate. That led to a number of changes under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the point that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was underlining. An assessment was made of which powers were no longer necessary because they no longer added to the protection of the public. That is why we made a number of changes and I was proud to be the Minister leading that Bill through the House. It was part of the process of constantly evaluating and assessing the measures in place in order to consider what is proportionate, appropriate and necessary to guard our national security. In our judgment it is appropriate to make further changes, which is why we seek to bring these measures before the Committee today.
	TPIMs have always been part of a package of legislative measures and investment provided to the police and security services to undertake further investigations. That investment will have led to other prosecutions. People who not have gone on to a TPIM have been brought before the courts as a consequence of that investment in capabilities. That is a positive result and something I think right hon. and hon. Members wish to see.
	The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 provides a powerful range of measures to manage the threat from terrorists who cannot be prosecuted or deported. TPIM notices are imposed only in cases that require stringent measures, but where they are used, they provide a valuable capability. The Government are committed to ensuring that the appropriate tools are available to our security services and the police for
	the protection of national security. That is why clause 12 introduces a new power for the Secretary of State to compel a TPIM subject to reside anywhere in the UK, subject to the restrictions we have talked about in the debate thus far. It is important to recognise the benefits that accrue and that there are safeguards in place. The Secretary of State has to make an assessment to determine whether a TPIM should be granted, why we judge it is human rights compliant and how that view has been upheld by the courts.

Caroline Lucas: Perhaps I am pre-empting the Minister, but I wanted to press him on clause 13. He talks about safeguards and so on, but how can he justify the fact that a 10-year prison sentence could be handed down to someone who may never have been arrested, let alone convicted, of a terrorism offence? That length of sentence is higher than that given for many violent offences that have been properly proved.

James Brokenshire: It is a question of the seriousness of the measures. We recognise, because of the changes we are making, that there should be higher burden placed on the Secretary of State in determining whether one of these measures should be provided. That is why we have moved this up to the “balance of probabilities”. Let us not forget that under the previous control orders regime it was not at that level, but two notches down at “reasonable suspicion”. Under TPIMs, we brought it up to “reasonable belief” and, on the balance of the measures we now have, we judge that moving to the “balance of probabilities” is the right stance to take. I will come on to clause 13 later.
	The changes are being introduced in the light of the changing threat picture: the ongoing conflict in Syria and Iraq; the fact that 500 subjects of interest have travelled to that region; the risk that they may pose on their return; and the risk of more people seeking to travel out. It is against that assessment that the threat level has been raised to severe, the second highest threat level, and that has had an impact on our assessment of the measures that need to be available to the police and the Security Service, and it is why we have brought forward the measures in this way.
	The measures also follow the recommendations from David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, in his most recent annual report on TPIMs. As he has said, however, there is no need to turn back the clock. Control orders were not working and were being struck down by the courts, whereas TPIMs have been consistently upheld and therefore provide a basis in law that is robust and has withstood the scrutiny of the courts. TPIMs have been endorsed by the courts, counter-terrorism reviewers, the police and the Security Service. This change enhances the powers available to manage TPIM subjects by moving them away from harmful associates and making it harder for them to engage in terrorism-related activity. That is why we judge, at this time against the threat picture we see, that it is appropriate to introduce these measures.
	It is important, however, that appropriate limits are placed on the use of the powers, and the Bill seeks to do that. We are also acting on David Anderson’s other recommendation to increase the test for imposing a
	TPIM notice, so that the Secretary of State must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that an individual is, or has been involved, in terrorism-related activity, as well as narrowing the definition of what that activity can entail.

Kenneth Clarke: I intervene on my hon. Friend as someone who supported the original move from control orders to TPIMs and thought the Government had got the balance about right in the original proposals. I am just wondering what the particular reason is for reintroducing the location requirements. What has been revealed to be missing by getting rid of them? They were thought to be a great restriction on freedom. The shadow Minister appears to believe that two people absconded because there was no location requirement. I think it is possible to put on a burqa wherever one is living and that it is quite possible to get into a black cab if someone has let one keep one’s passport. If that is being used as a reason, it strikes me as an excuse for letting two people go.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. An intervention is meant to be short. It is not meant to be a speech. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to speak, he could have done so earlier. Please, let us shorten these interventions.

Kenneth Clarke: I apologise, Mr Hoyle. What exactly has happened to give rise to the need to bring back what I thought were fairly useless relocation orders?

James Brokenshire: In large measure, it has been the changing nature of the threat picture. My right hon. and learned Friend will know from his time in government that in the past two years we have seen a very altered threat picture and, as he will no doubt recognise, a rise in the threat level earlier this year. The Government need to consider, in a responsible fashion, that changed threat picture and the advice we received from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. The proposals in the Bill are formed with that insight clearly in mind and David Anderson’s specific recommendation on this point. It has been against all those factors that we have judged that the right thing to do is to introduce the measures in this way, subject to the safeguards I have spoken about in respect of the change in the burden of proof and the specific limitation on relocation being limited to 200 miles from the location of the individual. I will come on to speak on that in a more direct fashion, recognising the point the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North rightly raised in her amendment.

Pete Wishart: I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), with his years of distinguished service to the House, deserves a better answer than that pathetic response from the Minister. The question the Minister has to answer is: why? What evidence does he have to suggest that relocation is now necessary? Why relocation? Why now?

James Brokenshire: If the hon. Gentleman is not able to recognise the change in the nature of the threat and the evolving picture taking place in recent months, I am sorry he is blind to it. The Government have a responsibility to respond to it in a fair way. We have to take into consideration the advice we receive from the independent
	reviewer of terrorism legislation, and listen to the Security Service and the police, who we have consulted, to ensure we have the right package of measures, challenging ourselves and others, to do all we can in a proportionate and necessary way to ensure that those agencies have the appropriate powers to guard against the changed risk picture, as well as ensuring an appropriate balance between privacy and security. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. and learned Friend on the issue of absconds. A point that David Anderson made directly was that the only way in which one could be absolutely certain that someone was unable to abscond was by putting them in a prison cell, which is why my preference always is to seek a prosecution, when the evidence is there. The challenge is that it is not always available.
	On amendment 4 and the 200-mile limit, the Bill seeks to ensure that these powers are used in a balanced and appropriate way, taking into consideration the need for proportionality. We have introduced a restriction, placing a 200-mile limit on the distance an individual may be moved from his own residence when a TPIM notice is imposed. This means that a TPIM subject will be only a few hours’ travel from their family members, but we can still gain the benefits of relocating that individual and disrupting their activity.
	Amendment 4, as has been highlighted, would remove the 200-mile limit in clause 12, under the overnight residence measure. The limit provides flexibility as to where a subject can be moved, based on the national security case, but gives a commitment that there will be an appropriate restriction on how this power will be used. The sense of proportionality and necessity has guided us here. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, while disagreeing with the principle, identified that having some boundaries was appropriate. I am sure that moving from London to the beautiful city of Perth, which I have visited on many occasions, would be a wonderful thing but we must look at what restrictions are proportionate and necessary. This was an issue that David Anderson looked at. Following his view that there should be restrictions on the ambit of this power, the distance was decided in consultation with the police and Security Service, taking into account their operational needs. Our judgment is that that is the right balance to strike.
	The decision on where an individual should live will be based on a number of different considerations, and will be decided on a case-by-case basis. We do not believe that the power to relocate an individual needs to be unlimited in order to achieve the aim of disrupting the individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity. That is why we have limited the clause in that way.

John McDonnell: I came somewhat late to the debate—for which I apologise—so I may have missed this. There is an issue about the counter-productive nature of control orders, as was, in terms of radicalising sections of the community, just as internment did with regard to the Irish community in Northern Ireland. Is there any estimate, or provisional estimate, of the scale of the use of TPIMs as envisaged in the Bill?

James Brokenshire: This is intended to be a very focused power on the basis—rightly, as we have discussed—that our strong preference is to see prosecution, and that it is only in the cases where prosecution, or indeed deportation, is not available to us that we would need to rely on the use of the TPIM measures. As no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been 10 TPIM notices imposed since their introduction. Perhaps that gives him some reassurance that this is not reached for as the first option. Indeed, we always look for prosecution, and there is a requirement in the TPIM legislation to show that those steps have been explored and that there is no reasonable prospect of being able to secure that.
	The impact on communities was carefully considered at the time of the counter-terrorism review and, indeed, led to the creation of the TPIMs Act and the measures that we now have on the statute book. In placing this type of restriction—now that we are saying we believe that relocation is appropriate in the light of the changed picture—it should not be unbounded; hence this restriction is in place so that an individual may only be a few hours’ away from their family rather than relocated to the other side of the country.
	Should exceptional circumstances arise that require more stringent measures, we retain the ability to enact the Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, which has passed pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill includes a range of more stringent powers, including curfews of up to 16 hours. As we said at the time of the counter-terrorism review, we reserve the right to be able to do that in those exceptional circumstances.
	Clause 13 amends the TPIMs Act and allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on an individual from leaving either the UK or a specified area within the UK within which they reside, and increases the maximum sentence for breaching this measure to 10 years, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has said. This underlines the Government’s commitment to ensuring that TPIM subjects are appropriately managed, but that if they breach their TPIM notice, appropriate sentences will be given to recognise the seriousness of the issues at hand. I hope that the House is reassured that these measures strike the right balance between privacy and security and, on this basis, I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment 7 would insert a new clause 6B after the clause 14, which is entitled “TPIMs: weapons and explosives measure”. Both the weapons and explosives measure and the proposed new clause 6B are designed to put beyond doubt what a TPIM subject is permitted to have access to on a TPIM notice. This amendment seeks to add an additional requirement in that respect.
	The hon. Lady asked a series of questions that were linked to this issue in relation to the vetting and barring service and what might apply. Perhaps I can reassure her that someone who wants to work in a school or other educational establishment will be eligible to obtain an enhanced criminal records certificate from the Disclosure and Barring Service, as the hon. Lady will know. The certificate will include convictions and cautions held on the police national computer, plus any other information that is available to the police and which a chief police officer both reasonably believes to be relevant and considers ought to be disclosed. This may include the fact that a person was or is subject to a TPIM notice. In
	addition the legislation governing barring allows specific criteria to be prescribed that would require someone to be automatically barred. There would be scope to use the provision in relation to a TPIM if that were considered appropriate. This is something that we already cover in the TPIM legislation, in that the Act provides the ability to prevent TPIM subjects from taking part in a regulated activity relating to vulnerable adults and children under the association measure in schedule 1(8) or the work or studies measure in schedule 1(9).
	The association measure in schedule 1 allows the Secretary of State to impose a requirement that a TPIM subject must not associate or communicate with specified persons, or specified descriptions of persons, without permission. In addition, the work or studies measure allows the Secretary of State to impose a restriction on a TPIM subject carrying out specified types of work, which includes unpaid work, or studies without the permission of the Secretary of State. We can and do use these measures to prevent TPIM subjects from associating with particular people or working or studying in areas that are assessed to be inappropriate. The measure proposed in this amendment duplicates that measure, which is why we judge that it is neither appropriate nor needed.

Diana Johnson: Just to be clear: if somebody is subject to a TPIM order, work that is voluntary and is not in a regulated activity could, under the current legislation, be something that the person is not allowed to take part in by decision of the Home Secretary.

James Brokenshire: That is the very point; we have that ability from the work and studies measure to be able to control that, and the Secretary of State effectively has to give permission for work to be conducted. There is an additional measure, plus the information that will be provided. The police update the police national computer when a TPIM subject has a notice imposed to ensure that this information can be taken into account in relation to any decision and checks on the subject, so it is flagged in that way. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady assurance on that specific point.
	As I said, amendment 7 would amend the appointments measure in clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings as specified by the Secretary of State. The appointments measure is already a broad power that allows the Secretary of State to require a TPIM subject to meet relevant organisations or people who can contribute to their ongoing management. The measure already includes the ability to require TPIM subjects to attend a deradicalisation programme, with persons involved in delivering programmes established under part 5, chapter 2 of the Bill. In our judgment, it is therefore unnecessary explicitly to specify this as part of the appointments measure. In essence, the existing language is broad enough and sufficient to allow us to require the link with deradicalisation programmes.
	The hon. Lady flagged up some other issues relating to offensive weapons and explosives. On that, we are seeking to put the issues beyond doubt. There is, of course, existing legislation that governs some of these issues, and it is our judgment that it ensures that these
	items are properly and firmly addressed. As I have indicated, the link to the police national computer is already there. This further underlines and underpins each of the specific issues already on the statute book.
	On the boundary that could be imposed, there is further specific provision on the requirement for the Secretary of State to provide certain guidance and indications on the factors that will be used in the assessment. These can include the original location of the TPIM subject; access to services; ability to prevent or restrict involvement in terrorism-related activity; proximity to airports or ports; and proximity to other TPIM subjects or prohibited associates. Those are the sort of factors that can be taken into account.
	The definition of terrorism-related activity, to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North referred, was followed through in David Anderson’s recommendations. His concern about the existing definition was that it has people almost three steps removed from the activity. We have consulted the police and security services in respect of this amendment, and they have been reflecting on David Anderson’s consideration. We continue to judge that the measures remain appropriate.
	I will gladly answer if I have omitted any of the hon. Lady’s questions, but I think what I have said covers the bulk of what she asked.

Diana Johnson: I do not recall the Minister responding to my point about families and whether a relocation of an individual could also include young children and a partner. It would be helpful to understand that situation.

James Brokenshire: Yes, families could live in the accommodation to which the TPIM subject has been relocated. In that relocation situation, it would be for the Home Office to provide the accommodation, as has happened under previous arrangements. We would seek to adhere to the same circumstances.
	With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw the amendment.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the many lengthy questions I put to him. We have had a useful opportunity to understand the thinking behind 12 to 16. As I indicated at the outset, the amendments I tabled were probing ones, intended to allow us to have this debate and to understand more fully the thinking behind the Government’s approach.
	It is clear, however, that no one absconded under a control order with a relocation power, and it is worth reiterating that, but on the basis of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clauses 12 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17
	 — 
	Retention of relevant data

Diana Johnson: I beg to move amendment 5,page11, line3,at end insert—
	(iii) is beyond that which is necessary to allow the identification of the user from the public Internet Protocol address.”
	This amendment would make it explicit that the extra data retention provided for in Clause 17 does not extend beyond that which is necessary for the purpose of identifying a user from the 
	IP address. This amendment is not intended to impact on the rest of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, only the extra retention requirements created by Clause 17.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clause 17 stand part.
	New clause 1—“Access to retained data; judicial oversight—
	(1) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) After section 22 insert—
	“22A Access to retained communications data: judicial oversight
	(1) This section applies where a person designated for the purposes of this Chapter believes that it is necessary on grounds falling within section 22 to obtain relevant communications data retained under section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 relating to professional activities covered by a duty of confidentiality.
	(2) Before granting an authorisation or issuing a notice under section 22 the designated person must have obtained the permission of the court.
	(3) In determining whether to grant permission under subsection (2) the court shall in particular balance the reasons why the designated person believes it is necessary to obtain the data against the public interest in upholding the duty of confidentiality.
	(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify—
	(a) the court or courts that shall determine applications for permission under this section;
	(b) the process for the court or courts to determine whether to grant permission;
	(c) the period for which permission shall apply before being renewed by the court; and
	(d) the process for a person or persons to appeal against a decision to grant permission.
	(5) Regulations under this section may not be made until they have been laid in draft before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.
	(6) In this section “professional activities covered by a duty of confidentiality” shall include, but not be limited to, the professional activities of journalists, legal advisers, medical professions and Members of Parliament.”
	New clause 2—“Review of timing for disclosure of Relevant Internet Data—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must instigate a review of the time taken for communications service providers to comply with a request for subscriber information made under Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
	(2) In this section “subscriber information” means relevant internet data as defined in section 17 of this Act in so far as it relates to information required to link a public internet protocol address to an individual user.”
	This New Clause would require the Home Secretary to instigate a review regarding the time taken by communications service providers to disclose information which links an individual to an IP address.
	Amendment 11, in clause42,page25,line5,at end insert—
	‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall not make regulations under subsection (3)(a) until a report by the Interception of Communications Commissioner on the use of powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to access the records of journalists has been laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

Diana Johnson: I shall speak to new clause 2 standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It would be helpful to start by providing some background to clause 17, although I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister’s comments. I must say at the outset that clause 17 is not the easiest clause to follow, and reference was made to that on Second Reading.
	Clause 17 amends the definition of “relevant communications data” as found within the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Some of clause 17 appears to tidy up drafting issues, such as the definition of communication, from the DRIP Act. However, the clause also expands the definition of relevant communications data to include an extra category of data described as “relevant internet data” in section 2 of DRIP in order to allow the Home Secretary to use powers under section 1 of DRIP to bring in regulations to ensure that this relevant internet data is retained by communications service providers.
	Essentially, the Government are using this fast-tracked primary legislation in early December to amend emergency primary legislation from July to enable the Home Secretary to bring in secondary legislation, but it is important to remember that while DRIP maintained the status quo in respect of data retention, clause 17 extends the current provision. That is why I think it important to pay close attention to the clause.
	The use of the term “relevant internet data” to define the extra data being provided for in clause 17 is, I think, problematic. The use of such a broad term suggests a wide new category of data retention, while the Bill’s explanatory notes suggest, it seems to me, a much narrower category of data—namely, the data necessary to allow relevant authorities to link the unique attributes of public internet protocol, or IP addresses, to the person or device using it.
	Amendment 5 is designed to ensure that the text of clause 17 matches the claims made in the explanatory notes. I understand that the change in the rules on data retention is a response to the increasing use of floating IP addresses by communications service providers, whereby one IP address is allocated to numerous devices. This is particularly common for mobile devices, which may connect to the internet only a second at a time, so numerous IP addresses may be allocated. The extra data retention, as provided for in clause 17, is to ensure that the data required to allow the relevant authorities to see who is the recipient of a communication such as an e-mail or a bit torrent, is retained by the CSP.
	While there is considerable and fully understandable public concern about the extent of data storage, the Opposition broadly accept the need for this extra category of data. It has always been the case that phone companies have kept records of phone calls made. People understand and generally accept that their phone company keeps a record of these calls and that they may be used by the police. We feel that the same principle should apply to electronic communication, and that this amendment is broadly in line with this principle.

Julian Smith: Will the shadow Minister explain a bit more of her party’s thoughts on making further changes in communications data and retention, because as she knows we need to do much more in this area and this is only the start?

Diana Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman will be little patient, I shall move on to that subject in a few moments.
	As I was saying, the Opposition accept that this extra category of data will be a vital tool for law enforcement—not just in protecting national security, but in combating a whole range of online crimes, including online child abuse, on which I shall speak in greater detail when we come on to new clause 2. The provisions for this extra category of data were first proposed in the Government’s ill-fated draft Communications Data Bill—I think that might help the hon. Gentleman in respect of his intervention. Although initially reluctant to provide any public evidence for why these extra data were needed, the Government did then provide the evidence that convinced the Joint Committee on the draft Bill of the necessity of this extra retention. The draft Communications Data Bill has been subject to much coalition grandstanding over the past few years, with the Home Secretary proposing a Bill of unprecedented, and in our view unnecessary, scope, while the Deputy Prime Minister refuses to accept the need for any legislation at all. Of course there was room for compromise and the Opposition have always supported this compromise. Some additional data retention is required, but not on the scale the Home Secretary proposed.

Alan Beith: How can the hon. Lady say that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister did not see the need for any legislation at all when we are sitting here in this Committee this afternoon considering the legislation which we think properly balances the privacy issues with the need for public safety?

Diana Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we will obviously disagree on what I have just said.
	Our view, agreed with by most of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, is that the data required to link an IP address to a device is one such category of data that is required and therefore we welcome what in principle clause 17 seeks to achieve. I say “in principle” because we do have some concerns about the drafting of clause 17, which is why we have tabled amendment 5.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson: I will give way, but, as I have said, I do want to get on to the substantive issues.

Julian Smith: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way. Will she just clarify briefly the further categories that she sees becoming more important, and where the Government and coalition can expect Labour’s support as they seek to put more of these areas on to the statute book?

Diana Johnson: What I will come on to say about some of the concerns we have might help the hon. Gentleman, but his question obviously leads into a debate that goes wider than this particular grouping, which is specifically on clause 17, and in the Committee stage of the Bill. I will therefore continue with my points on this grouping, because I am sure I would be in trouble if I did not do that.
	To repeat, although in principle we support clause 17, we have some concerns about its drafting, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. Because of the broad label “relevant internet data”, we want to put it beyond doubt that the category of data to be retained under clause 17 does not extend beyond what is strictly necessary to link an IP address to a user.
	In the Bill, the definition of “relevant internet data” is data which
	“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”
	and
	“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
	While this appears to include a whole host of other traffic data, including web logs, clause 17 also states that “relevant internet data” is not “communications data” as defined by the schedule to the Data Retention Regulations 2014 or information as defined in clause 17(3)(c), which is supposed to exclude web logs from this provision. We have concerns about the accuracy with which subsection (3)(c) captures the nature of web logs, which is why we have tabled amendment 5. I hope the regulations this clause will enable will be clearer than this primary clause in the legislation. It is disappointing that, unlike with the DRIP Bill, the draft regulations have not yet been published alongside the Bill. This has caused problems for Parliament’s ability to provide proper scrutiny of this clause.
	As well as accepting our amendment 5, which I hope the Minister will be able to do, I urge him to go back and look again at the drafting of clause 17 before Report. In order to increase public confidence in the use of retained communications data we need to be clear about what is retained and I believe clause 17 and the accompanying explanatory notes could be better in this regard.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Diana Johnson: I will one more time.

Julian Smith: The hon. Lady talks about web logs. Will she clarify the Opposition’s long-term position on that issue, and what she sees will happen in the future, when on many sides of the security spectrum there seems to be a consensus that there is a need to bring these areas in eventually?

Diana Johnson: I will just reiterate that we are dealing with clause 17, and we are very mindful that we want to ensure that web logs are not included under this clause. My focus is on getting clarity on that from the Minister. What might happen in the long term is perhaps a debate for another time. I am concerned that we get the drafting of this clause as accurate as we can.
	I was talking about making sure the public are confident about what we are trying to do through clause 17, and what is included and what is not included. The data at the heart of clause 17 appear to be what is commonly referred to as “IP resolution data”, but this term does not appear in the text of the explanatory notes, and I hope the Minister will be able to explain whether they do refer to the same thing, as there is some confusion here.
	As I explained, clause 17 is meant to plug a gap within the current framework for data retention, but when we compare the language of the Bill with the text of the current regulations, the gap is not immediately obvious. Clause 17 refers to data which
	“relates to an internet access service or an internet communications service”
	and
	“may be used to identify, or assist in identifying, which internet protocol address…belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
	However, part 3, paragraph 11 of the schedule to the existing regulations refers to the subscriber information
	“to whom an Internet Protocol (IP) address, user ID or telephone number was allocated at the time of the communication.”
	I ask the Minister to look at this and see whether he cannot amend the language to make clear on the face of the Bill the exact data category that will be provided for in the regulations.
	I am also concerned about the degree to which clause 17 relies on definitions provided from the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. I am sure the Minister is aware of the findings of the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill that the definitions used in RIPA were out of date and needed to be replaced. Given this, it is surprising to see both the definition of “communication” and section (3)(c) of the clause rely so heavily on RIPA definitions.
	I would also like the Minister look again at the definition of “identifier.” According to clause 17
	“‘identifier’ means an identifier used to facilitate the transmission of a communication”.
	This is at least partly circular, and again adds to the confusion around this clause. Finally, in subsection (2)(b) will the Minister confirm that he does indeed mean “paragraph (a)” rather than subsection (a)?
	In addition to the five questions above regarding the drafting, I have 10 questions about the implementation that I hope the Minister will be able to address in his comments. First, will he tell the House whether he expects to introduce new retention regulations under DRIPA section 1, or will the Government be seeking to amend the Data Retention Regulations 2014? Secondly, and on a similar note, will he update the House on when he expects to publish these draft regulations and when he hopes they will be in force? Thirdly, when the data covered under clause 17 is traffic data, while the relevant authority wants to reveal the subscriber information behind this, will this be covered under a single request under RIPA, or could clause 17 data simply lead to a disclosure which requires a further RIPA request to be made? Fourthly—this is particularly relevant to amendment 5—will he assure the House that the retention by the Crown Prosecution Service of this relevant internet data can be done in such a way that does not require deep package inspections of the type that would be considered intrusive surveillance? Fifthly—and again relating to amendment 5—will the Minister explain in practice how the regulations will separate out communications going to a device, which could be a web log, such as access to an app, which would be considered a website, and communications going to a device which enables a communication, such as an app which facilitates web e-mail storage?
	Sixthly, will the Minister confirm that the extra reporting requirements imposed on the interception of communications commissioner by the DRIP Act will extend to the data retained and subsequently requested under clause 17? Will the Minister be providing additional resources to the commissioner to meet those additional requirements?
	Seventhly, will the Minister tell the House how roaming services are dealt with, both international SIM cards temporarily hosted on UK networks and UK-based SIMs use data roaming abroad?
	Eighthly, will the Minister tell the House what he would expect the costs to be on a relevant authority making a request for data provided for under clause 17?
	Ninthly, can the Minister tell the House what discussions have been undertaken with industry? In particular, can he respond to the comment from the secretary-general of the Internet Services Providers Association that he was “disappointed” that the Home Office had not consulted with industry before announcing these proposals? How did the Minister reach the £98 million estimate of compensation required by the industry if he has not consulted with it?
	Finally, will the Minister assure the House that the Government have obtained independent legal advice to ensure that this measure is compatible with the decision of the European Court of Justice to quash the data retention directive? In that judgment, the ECJ suggested that any form of blanket retention was disproportionate, and also called for additional safeguards on when the data can be disclosed. Is the Minister still confident that the measures contained within DRIP are sufficient to meet those demands?

Alan Beith: The hon. Lady has produced a formidable list of questions, but I only have one for her, on amendment 5. It seems to me that the process we are describing does not enable people to discover who the user of an instrument was; it locates or identifies only the instrument from which the communication was made. Therefore, amendment 5 would be inoperative, because it could never be demonstrated that it was being used to establish who the user was as it cannot be guaranteed to do that.

Diana Johnson: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s observations on amendment 5. As with the previous grouping, the amendment was tabled to give us the opportunity to look at the specifics of clause 17 and to understand fully the thinking behind the Minister’s approach. I take on board what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which may be correct, but the amendment allows us to debate what would be disclosed and what information would be available.
	I have just bombarded the Minister with a whole range of questions and I know that, as usual, he will be very thorough and go through each in turn. However, I want to turn briefly to new clause 2, which seeks to move on from the retention of data to a review of whether the form of storing the data is allowing the key authorities to access it in a timely manner. I will say, so everyone understands where I am coming from, that this proposal aims to probe the Minister’s argument,
	and to look at the clause to see what more can be done and whether we need to be aware of any issues for companies.
	My concern arises from the police’s apparent problems in pursuing the majority of suspected paedophiles identified through Operation Notarise. My understanding is that Operation Notarise identified between 20,000 and 30,000 individuals whom the communications data suggested were taking part in online abuse. From that, only 700 people have been named, investigated and arrested, so well in excess of 20,000 IP addresses have been identified, but that information has not been translated into named users. At this point, I am not even talking about arrests, but about identifying the users to enable effective safeguarding interventions.
	Once a user is identified, even if it is just an address, the police can make several key checks: first, against the police national computer to see if there is a known sex offender living at the address; secondly, against the Disclosure and Barring Service database to identify anyone who might be working with or have access to children; and thirdly, against the Department for Work and Pensions database to see if a child is registered at the property for the purpose of claiming child benefit.
	At the moment, the police do not know how many of the people they have identified are known sex offenders, working with children or living with children. Most people would see that as unacceptable and would believe there should be a response. This could start with a review of the degree to which the difficulty of linking IP addresses to users is behind the police’s problems with moving this forward.
	Finally, I turn to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), on the degree to which RIPA is being used to access the records of certain professionals, including journalists. They address a real concern that Members and the general public have about the use of RIPA to access the records particularly of journalists and those in the media.
	As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has said, this issue has to be addressed. Indeed, a key concession secured by the Opposition during the passage of the DRIP Bill was that a review of RIPA would be conducted by David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, and that it would include the use of RIPA to look at the records of journalists. It is because we have confidence in that review that we do not feel amendment 11 is necessary.
	However, that is also why the Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of new clause 1, which would require a court order before relevant authorities could access communications data that could be covered by a professional duty of confidentiality. The clause does not state whether the role of the court would be simply to ensure that due process is followed, or to apply some test of proportionality or necessity. However, the clause provides for the right of appeal for the individual. That means that an individual would have prior knowledge that their communications data were to be disclosed to law enforcement agencies. It is also
	important to note that the clause would apply not just to journalists but to doctors, lawyers and others, including Members of Parliament, when a professional duty of confidentiality could be construed.

Mark Field: The hon. Lady referred to journalists, but how broadly would she or her colleagues define “journalists”? We are living in a world of bloggers and of a whole range of individuals who would consider themselves to be part of the media overall, but presumably she would not necessarily want each and every one of those self-professed journalists and bloggers to be caught by these potentially restricting and constricting provisions, essentially watering down elements of RIPA?

Diana Johnson: I have the disadvantage of speaking first on this group of amendments, and obviously, this is not my amendment, so I am very much looking forward to hearing what the proposers feel would happen. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point, because we are not only talking about a limited group of people who describe themselves as journalists and who, in the past, we would have been able to identify clearly. Perhaps the proposers of the amendment would be able to address that when they speak to it.
	I want to make a further point about the broad definition of professional duty that concerns me, especially when combined with the right of appeal. As I have said, a large number of professionals have some form of duty of confidentiality, and it many cases it is not clear, particularly when discussing communications data, how that potential duty of confidentiality would be separated from other investigations about which we would not allow the individual to have prior knowledge. There is a clear case for preventing a journalist from being targeted for their sources unless there is an overwhelming need to do so. However, the case is less clear in respect of other professions, particularly as we may be investigating issues involving criminal misconduct. Let me give an example for the Committee to consider: the case of Myles Bradbury, the doctor recently convicted of a string of horrendous sexual assaults of boys in his care. As a doctor, he would potentially have been covered by the new clause, especially in respect of some of his communications, and the Committee would be concerned about that. If he had been alerted to the fact that the police were investigating him, he would have had some time to delete much of the evidence which was then used to lead to his prosecution. I just give that as an example of the care we have to take in considering these matters.
	I hope the Minister will respond in detail—I am sure he will—to the issues I have raised on this group, particularly the need for the drafting of clause 17 to be made much clearer so that the general public can be reassured about exactly what it is attempting to do.

Alan Beith: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is right to seek clarification to satisfy herself and her colleagues that clause 17 achieves its intended purpose and no more. Its intended purpose is reasonable: to keep up with the technological changes that lead evildoers to move from one technology to another, and become more difficult to track as they do so.

Julian Smith: On that point—

Alan Beith: Goodness me, I have barely started, but I will give way.

Julian Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this provision does not keep up with the technology, and that much more has to happen and will happen? Will he clarify his party’s position on the changes that will have to come?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman has a strange desire, which he has expressed during a previous speech, to extend the debate beyond the bounds of clause 17 and the amendments to it. I do not think we should be drawn into that at the moment, except to make the general point that all processes involving intrusion into people’s private communications should have high levels of justification before they are used at all, and protections should be provided by various safeguards and authorisations. Finding the right balance for different levels of communication is a difficult task, and I expect a great deal of work will need to be done. Most of us in this House, and certainly most in my party, do not want, either by design or accidental discovery, a great deal of personal information about people to get in the hands of the state and its employees without any reasonable justification. On a matter that will be raised when the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) speaks, nor do we want the processes of investigation by journalists to be impaired by a fear that sources will be compromised from the beginning. There are very good reasons for extreme caution in this area, but I believe the Government have exercised that caution and sought to devise a process to deal with a particular and recognisable difficulty.

Mark Field: The right hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly valid point. In the midst of the more hyperbolic phrases that get used, such as “snooper’s charter”, does he recognise that legislation such as this—and further legislation, which will inevitably be required whoever is in government in the years to come—should also be designed to protect the individual? It is not just about the state getting more powers; it is about codifying the rules and protections for the individual. It is very important that we have that in mind when looking at any new legislation that comes into play.

Alan Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s observation, which points to part of the purpose of the process, of which this is only a part. The clauses we are talking about in RIPA—or DRIPA, as it has become known—are the subject of a sunset provision, because significant further review is to take place and new legislation will be required on the outcome of that review. So those who think that detailed discussion of matters that often feel technically beyond us is just an occasional thing in this House will have to recognise that we are going to be coming back to this issue. That does not apply to me, because I do not anticipate being a Member in the next Parliament, having announced that I am going to retire, but Members in the next Parliament will certainly be engaging with these issues.
	I simply wished to place on the record that my view—and, I hope, that of my right hon. and hon. Friends—is that the Government have striven hard to find a sensible way to identify the instrument or apparatus that has been the point of communication. In many
	cases, that will enable them to identify the individual, but I stress that it does not guarantee that, any more than knowing a telephone number guarantees that the person who used the telephone—that instrument from that number—is the person who engaged in the criminal activity. It is more complicated than that, but this provision is a necessary aid to investigations ranging from the activities of paedophiles through to the serious threats we now face.

George Howarth: I wish to begin by providing some context. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report in February 2013 referred to the Home Office’s assessment that there was a
	“25% shortfall in the communications data that public authorities would wish to access and what they are currently able to access.”
	That is, of course, an estimate, as it is not possible to be precise about what is unknowable, but the existence of a shortfall is a legitimate cause for concern. The report goes on to suggest that
	“left unchecked, this gap will increase.”
	Perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether it has increased and, if so, whether by an appreciable amount. It would be interesting to know that, and I suspect it has increased.
	It is worth spending a little more time examining what we know about both the scale and the sources of interceptions that take place. In his annual report for 2013, the interception of communications commissioner, Sir Anthony May, noted that the total number of authorisations for interception of communications data under part 1 of RIPA stood at 514,608, down from 570,135 in 2012. He pointed out that these figures do not represent sole individuals, because
	“public authorities often make multiple requests for communications data in the course of a single investigation but also make multiple requests for communications data in relation to the same individual.”
	The figures give some indication of the scale of this, rather than the number of individuals who are covered. Under the same process, Sir Anthony notes that 87.7% of authorisations were at the request of the police and law enforcement agencies, 11.5% were from the intelligence agencies, and the rest were from local and other public bodies.
	Worldwide, the scale of online communications is daunting. About 3 billion people have access to the internet, and during the time I have been speaking more than 200 million e-mails will have been sent, 2 million Google searches will have been made and there will have been 6 million Facebook views. So why is it considered important that the police, intelligence agencies and other bodies have access to some of the data records of these online communications? Overwhelmingly, internet traffic is benign; it is people using the various platforms for perfectly legitimate and legal purposes. However, a small proportion—I estimate it to be no more than a tiny fraction of 1%—is used for illegal purposes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) referred to some other purposes that are cause for concern.
	My hon. Friend’s new clause 2 would, if agreed, require the Home Secretary to review the time taken by communications service providers to disclose information linking an individual to an internet protocol address.
	That is important for two reasons. The first is that, as we tragically discovered with Fusilier Lee Rigby’s murder, CSPs will, on occasion, receive information that in some cases could crucially be the catalyst for a warrant to enable greater surveillance measures on an individual to take place. In turn that can, in some cases, prevent a terrorist attack.
	IP addresses are the key to unlocking who is contacting whom, and that can be critical. But they are not straightforward. Typically, a communications service provider with, say, 10 million to 15 million customers would have allocated to it 100,000 IP addresses. For the larger commercial bodies or public bodies, a series of static IP addresses will be allocated. But for the vast majority of users, IP addresses are dynamic. In practice, a range of numbers is allocated randomly to customers, which is why the former head of GCHQ used the analogy of finding a needle in a haystack.
	Secondly, the range of platforms is constantly changing, with new ones entering the market all the time. A good example of that is WhatsApp, which was recently acquired by Facebook for $22 billion. On 1 April, that platform, which is adaptable and easy to use, handled, over a 24-hour period, 64 billion messages, 20 billion of which were sent and 44 billion of which were received. In such a dynamic sphere of activity, it is vital that procedures are in place and properly monitored to ensure that, when the security and intelligence services need to locate a needle in a haystack, the haystack is still in place, and that is what this section of the Bill seeks to ensure. It means that urgent inquiries of either a historical or planned terrorist or criminal activity can be located.

Julian Smith: The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for us to go further. What would he do now? He has made it clear that there are many technologies that need much more scrutiny and oversight. What would he do if he were in charge?

George Howarth: Had the hon. Gentleman waited a while longer, I was about to say what more could be done. It is right that we have a statutory provision, and, subject to the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North highlighted being satisfied, the provisions contained in the Bill are appropriate. However, there is a problem that we cannot resolve within the context of our own domestic legislation. Many of the communications service providers are not based in the UK; they are based mostly in the United States. Increasingly, the Republic of Ireland is seen as a location of choice for some companies. Google and perhaps one other CSP have already relocated there. It is increasingly clear that whatever legislation we put in place, it will not, of itself, be enough to resolve the problem.

Mark Field: Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the increased knowledge of the general public and—dare I say it—of individuals who would do us harm about the techniques adopted by the security services and others have also helped to ensure that there is now much more sophisticated encryption in place, which also plays an important part in further reducing our capacity to know precisely what is happening on the internet?

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is quite right and he, like me, is a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have good reason to believe that there are any number of encryption packages that can be bought quite openly on the internet. It is a matter not just of the communications service providers encrypting communications that take place but of individuals buying packages that enable them to do that themselves, which makes the situation even more difficult.
	What more can we do? It is no use pretending that this problem is unique to the UK; it is a very difficult international problem. I know that the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and others are in constant dialogue with their opposite numbers in the United States, but there needs to be a growing understanding between ourselves and the places where CSPs are located that there cannot be this ungoverned space within which criminal activity can take place unchecked on the basis that it is in another jurisdiction from where it is being perpetrated. That issue can only be properly resolved by states, either bilaterally or multilaterally, agreeing protocols and ways of dealing with these issues. Obviously, it is much more easy to do that with friendly states—states with which we share common values—than it is in some other areas where internet providers might decide to locate because there will not be many controls on them. Clearly, that is another matter that needs to be seriously avoided.
	We need to have order in this ungoverned space. I am talking about legal compliance and there not being this free space in which crime, terrorism and other activities can illegally take place. It is also important that the CSPs take a more responsible view of what they are being used for. Like the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), I have seen some CSPs washing their hands of such responsibilities, saying,” That is a matter of jurisdiction. We are not in that jurisdiction so we will comply with the laws where we are.” That might be good for their reputations with their customers, but it is a fairly cynical way of operating. I hope that, through the intervention of our own Government and Governments elsewhere, CSPs can be brought to the view that they should behave responsibly and in such a way that upholds the law right across the world—except in cases where the rule of law does not operate.

Mark Field: Is the right hon. Gentleman happy for me to put it on the record that it is also the case that many CSPs do a very good job of co-operating with the police and law enforcement agencies? Part of the difficulty has been that the revelations of the past 14 or 15 months have exposed what some would call an over-cosy relationship between those service providers and the state. I am talking about not so much here in the UK, but in mainland Europe and the United States of America, and it has been commercially damaging to many of those providers.

George Howarth: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Sometimes the difficulty is that the amount of data and communications that providers store means that they are unable to know what is there. Very often, controls are triggered electronically, and so human eyes might not necessarily see the communication that relates to a terrorist plot, organised crime or even, in a hidden
	corner of it all, some kind of child abuse. Quite often, no human eyes see it, and it may be that only after an event—as in the case of Fusilier Lee Rigby—do people become aware that there was a communication that indicated that someone was about to or was likely to do something, and that knowing about it could have made a difference, as we concluded in our report the other week. Perhaps I have presented too cynical a picture of communications service providers. I know that, on occasion, they do co-operate constructively, but I believe that increasingly we need the space in which they operate to be better regulated, and that requires international controls agreed between responsible allies and CSPs themselves.
	I will end my speech by discussing an issue on which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is likely to speak next, which is privileged information and certain professions “immunity” from these provisions. I think the principle is correct: there are certain discussions and areas of information that should be privileged—for example, if somebody talks with their legal adviser or gives information to a journalist or even in the privacy of a Member of Parliament’s surgery. However, I am not sure that the amendment my hon. Friend has tabled would achieve that end without creating a gap between what is necessary and what is desirable. I simply echo what has been said by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in asking how we define a legitimate professional journalist. There are thousands and thousands of people online who would consider themselves journalists but who may well have ulterior motives or connections with a terrorist community or with people plotting terrorism.
	As a matter of principle, I think my hon. Friend is right, but we need to find proper ways to make sure that exceptions to the rule are governed under the same rules as everybody else. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

John McDonnell: indicated dissent.

George Howarth: I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend has to say. I acknowledge that he and his supporters have a valid point to make. I just think it is a tricky area in which to legislate and there might be a better way of doing it that we have not thought of yet.

John McDonnell: Everyone else who has spoken so far seems to have explained my amendments, and I am grateful to them. I tabled new clause 1 and amendment 11 because there is now a sense of urgency about dealing with this matter. I speak as the secretary of the National Union of Journalists group in Parliament—a group of MPs drawn from various political parties in the House. Throughout proceedings on RIPA and DRIPA and now this Bill, we have been discussing this issue. To put it simply, this House has always recognised in legislation the need to protect journalists, because we see journalism as one of the bulwarks of democracy in this country. Although we may not be enamoured of journalists or individual newspapers at times, we believe they play a vital democratic role in exposing what happens, particularly in regard to the behaviour of public authorities, governments, corporations and others. That is why over
	the years we have written into legislation protection for journalists, as well as for other professions where there are issues of confidentiality, and the House has accepted that in all the debates so far.

Alan Beith: It might be better expressed as “protection for sources”, because the primary concern is not to give a special elevated status to the journalist, but to avoid a situation in which the questions are asked, “Who told him and how can we get him?”

John McDonnell: Exactly. I was not arguing for preferential status for journalists—God forbid that I do that here. I was coming on to that point: this is about the ability to make sure a source is protected—as we all know, sources are often whistleblowers, blowing the whistle on abuses by public authorities and others—but it is also relevant to the protection of journalists themselves. We have seen across the world how, when the confidentiality of journalists’ sources is undermined, journalists become just as much a target as their sources, and in recent years large numbers of journalists in various countries have died as a result of persecution. What I am trying to say is that it is critical that we protect the role journalists play and enable them to undertake their work.
	We have legislated in accordance with that principle—in PACE, for example. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) that it is always difficult to find the mechanism, but the mechanism under PACE was the ability of the court to determine whether a production order should be made. We gave it over to the courts to determine that. What was important about that is that the journalist was notified of the application and could contest it before the court, and a decision would then be made that commanded the confidence of all those involved. The classic case since then is when the police failed to get an order under PACE and then used RIPA to obtain an order against a journalist to get information relating to articles that were being written, including the sources of that information. I think it was generally felt in the House that that was not what we intended when we passed PACE and was not in the spirit of RIPA. We have for some time consistently tried to get Government and this House—the responsibility falls on the shoulders of us all—to do exactly as my right hon. Friend said and to find an appropriate mechanism.
	I tabled new clause 1 because I cannot find an effective mechanism other than the use of the courts at some stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) asked whether it is a mechanism enabling the court to determine whether due process has been followed or the merits of a case. I have left that open for now because I welcome the discussion, but in my view, it is both.

Julian Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John McDonnell: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to ask me a detailed question about my long-term future policy.

Julian Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a mechanism is already in place, because David Anderson is conducting a review of the rules and
	regulations. In tabling the amendments, the hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun. Surely we have to wait for David Anderson’s report.

John McDonnell: That is a valid point. I tabled the amendments to say that there is a sense of urgency. Something needs to be done now; some steps need to be taken immediately—before the Anderson review, to be frank.
	I have raised this matter previously and engaged in dialogue with the Minister. I have a clutch of papers here, because I wanted to be sure of the accuracy of my remarks. I raised it way back on 22 July, in the debate on regulations made under DRIPA. The Minister responded in a letter received on 28 July:
	“The Government…intend to bring forward amendments to the Acquisition and Disclosure Code of Practice to make this clear”.
	What he was making clear was, I think, the importance of some form of understanding of the role of journalists and their sources, and therefore sensitivity in the approach taken. That becomes even more important now that in this legislation we are extending the range of the data to be collected. I take the point that this does not identify individuals, but on the information provided by Big Brother Watch and contained in the House of Commons research paper, the definitions have been narrowed. Big Brother Watch is concerned about
	“the possibility of more personal information being accessed than first implied. … This means that the identity of an individual has the potential to be fully revealed by these powers.”
	There is thus some uncertainty about how the powers could be used to drill down into the information to identify an individual and therefore a source and put everyone at risk.
	I do not believe that the code has yet been published. I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to tell me.

James Brokenshire: I intend to address that point specifically when I respond to the debate, which I hope will be helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

John McDonnell: I am never sure what it means when a Minister says that he is about to be helpful. He was helpful when I led a delegation from the NUJ with its lawyer to meet the civil servants who were drafting the new code of practice. We put some suggestions to them. I note—I am sorry to scramble around with these bits of paper—that the new code of practice on covert surveillance comes into effect on 10 December, and it covers legally privileged and confidential information. It demonstrates that particular care should be taken in cases in which the subject of the investigation or operation might reasonably expect a high degree of privacy or where confidential information is involved. Confidential information consists of communications subject to legal privilege, communications between a Member of Parliament and another person—the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley raised—on constituency matters, confidential personal information or confidential journalistic material, so there is an element of reference to privilege and the role of journalists in other codes coming into force this week.
	At this stage, it is critical that the code is published and implemented as quickly as possible, as a stepping stone to what might then come out of the wider review. I tabled an amendment to ensure that the legislation should not be implemented until the review is concluded, and I can argue that case. Hon. Members can see where I am coming from. I want a sense of urgency to give at least some protection to journalists in the interim before the review is published, which I believe it will be in a period of time that has been designated. I hope that the review will contain a recommendation that there should be some process in which the courts are involved. I do not believe that there will be sufficient protection against in-house decisions by any authority, be it the police, the intelligence services or, as we have seen with RIPA, local authorities and other agencies, which have used RIPA to investigate their staff, journalists and others on some of the most trivial grounds. In one instance, it was for the protection of the council’s reputation. I do not believe that in-house procedures would satisfy the general public or Members of this House. That is why I hope that some process will come out of the review which will involve the courts. My view is that there should be not just a review of the process but in some instances a review of the merits of the case itself.
	I note that not just this review but a range of reviews are taking place. I also note that some momentum is building for involving the courts. The Deputy Prime Minister and—well, blow me—the Mayor of London have called for the law to be changed to require a judge to sign off applications involving the data of journalists. The Government would be wise, once the review is finished, to come forward with proposals that involve some form of judicial oversight of the process. That would build the confidence of professionals.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North raised the issue of other professions. I understand her particular example involving the medical profession, but that would be determined by a court. The merits of the case plus the process would be argued in such a case.
	Since the revelations that a number of Members of Parliament have had our telephone calls with our constituents who are prisoners intercepted—tapped—there is now a greater sense of urgency to ensure confidence in the ability of certain professionals and others to maintain confidentiality. It is important that the Government give some serious attention to making recommendations to protect us all. Journalists can become extremely vulnerable if their sources are revealed, but so can MPs. That breakdown of confidentiality between an MP and their constituent can make us vulnerable to charges of collusion and other nefarious actions, so there is an urgency about this. We need imminent publication of an effective code of practice, and, I hope, once the review is published, imminent legislation to involve the courts in the oversight of the whole process. We have gone from RIPA to DRIPA to this Bill, which seems to be mission creep on the extension of data and communications powers.

Mark Field: I very much agree that we should be proud of the traditions of a free press in this country. The hon. Gentleman has not yet answered on the extent of journalism. I accept that new clause 1(6) is not
	exhaustive, but he has not mentioned religious counsellors, whom many would consider to have a similar duty of care. Does the hon. Gentleman have any thoughts on that, though I accept that he has not made an exhaustive list at this stage?
	[Interruption.]

John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley says that my local parish priest rather optimistically describes me as a lapsed Catholic. The secrets of the confessional need to be included; otherwise, there might be an excommunication.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) makes a good point about journalism. I would like the definition to be membership of the NUJ, but there you are. These days, I would have the widest interpretation, but if it is to be contested, I would like to see a court make the decision on the basis of the evidence before it.

Alan Beith: It is important that we distinguish what we are talking about here—the protection of the conversations that take place between lawyers and their clients and between doctors and their patients, discovered by entirely different processes. We are looking at the identification of the person who tipped someone off or provided some information. There may be good criminal law reasons for finding out who that person is, but I agree that some kind of measure is needed to ensure that those who warn a journalist or perhaps a Member of Parliament that something serious is going wrong have protection.

John McDonnell: Let me give one example of where RIPA was used. The case of Kirsty Green was in the evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee by Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the NUJ. Kirsty was a former regional newspaper journalist. Derby council spied on her meeting with local authority staff in 2009. Two Derby city council employees watched her when, as Derby Telegraph’s local government correspondent, she met four current and former council employees in a Starbucks coffee shop. The local authority said that RIPA was used to get surveillance authority for officials because they were protecting the council’s interests. The consequences for those individuals was a risk to their job in the local authority.
	It is important that communication is protected, but names and sources also have to be protected, especially for whistleblowers, as we have seen when social workers have come forward in child abuse cases. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point well, but to me it emphasises even further the need for some judicial process in the oversight of access to the data and the way in which the legislation has been proposed.

James Brokenshire: We have had an interesting and informative debate focusing on the broader aspects of the ability of the law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do their job in a fast-moving environment where technology continues to change, and their ability to continue to protect us in those circumstances. I will argue that we have an eroding capability and although the measure will deal with one element, there is still more that we need to do. That is a point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has intervened on other speakers in the debate
	and he is right to make the point. I will come on to the possible next steps in the context of the various reviews that are taking place.
	The gap was highlighted by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). I know that his Committee is looking carefully at the issue of privacy versus security. The need to strike a balance between them and some of the issues arising from that have rightly been played out in the context of interception, data retention and communications data. I look forward to the publication of the Committee’s report, which I expect to be extremely informative in this regard.

Mark Field: Without giving a preview of anything in the Committee report, I think it is important, for the benefit of the House and those Members who take the matter very seriously, that we should remember that privacy and security are not a zero sum game. Although my hon. Friend uses the word “balance”, as many of us do from time to time, there is also a sense that these are important safeguards individually and in their own right. One of the broader recommendations that we make from the evidence we took from a wide range of people is that the notion that there is a balance and a zero sum game should be dispelled.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, he will recognise the challenges. He is right to underline the significance and to reiterate what I said on Second Reading—that security and liberty should be mutually reinforcing. His point about it not being a zero sum game is well made.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who speaks for the Opposition identified a list of 10 points, and I will do my best to respond to some of them. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) underlined the role of sensitive categories of person and additional safeguards that may be provided in respect of them when we consider communications data and the ability of the police to request such data. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) pointed out, we are looking at metadata—who said what to whom, when and where—rather than the content.
	It is clear from the contributions that we have heard that gaps in communications data capability have a serious impact on the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to carry out their functions—the point that was made clearly by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the shadow Minister. One such gap is internet protocol address resolution. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 maintained our lawful data retention regime. It did not create any additional powers, nor did it address any of the gaps in capability. To respond to the point made by the hon. Lady, we remain confident about the manner in which it did that in seeking to address the points raised by the European Court of Justice.
	Clause 17 amends that Act—DRIPA—to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time. Every internet user is assigned an IP address to ensure that communications service providers know which data should go to which customer and route it accordingly. Addresses are sometimes assigned
	to a specific device, such as a broadband router located in a home or within the work environment, but they are usually shared between multiple users— hundreds or even thousands—and allocated automatically by the provider’s systems. Many providers currently have no business reason for keeping a log of who has used each address. It is therefore not always possible for law enforcement agencies accessing the data to identify who was using an IP address at any specific point in time.
	The provision would ensure that these data are available to law enforcement. It would improve the ability of the police and other agencies to identify terror suspects who may be communicating with each other via the internet and plotting attacks. It would also help to identify and prosecute paedophiles, organised criminals, cyber bullies and computer hackers, and to protect vulnerable people. For example, it could be used to identify a child who has threatened over social media to commit suicide. The IP address has direct relevance to all these issues and it is evidence that can be brought before the court. In the context of the previous debate, it is often instrumental in bringing prosecutions. Communications data are used in about 95% of all serious crime prosecutions, so they have a direct utility.

Bob Stewart: Just a question to the Minister—does this also apply to medical in confidence communication between, say, a doctor and a patient, and documents being intercepted, or am I totally out to lunch, as it were?

James Brokenshire: I am not sure that my hon. Friend would ever be out to lunch, particularly at 3.26 in the afternoon. I think he is talking about interception. The clause is about the connection, the metadata—about who communicated with whom—rather than the content of the communication. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington spoke specifically about interception and the way in which certain protected categories of individual may be affected. My hon. Friend highlights a specific point, but I will come on to communications data, DRIPA and the codes of practice, and the status of certain individuals in respect of requests that may be made for that information.
	Amendment 5, as the hon. Lady explained when she moved it, seeks to limit the scope of the provision to the retention of data that is necessary to allow the identification of a user from a public internet protocol address. I am pleased to say that there is no difference of principle between us on this issue. It is important that this provision goes no further than necessary to ensure that communications service providers can be required to retain the data necessary to link the unique attributes of an internet connection to the person or device using it at any given time.
	I can confirm that the provision is already limited in the way the Opposition propose. Subsection (3) defines the data to be retained as data that
	“may be used to identify, or assist in indentifying, which internet protocol address, or other identifier, belongs to the sender or recipient of a communication”.
	As such, any data that cannot be used to identify, or assist in identifying, the user of an IP address are already outside the scope of the provision. A requirement to retain the data may only be imposed where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
	On the hon. Lady’s specific point about web logs, I can assure the Committee that the Bill is already tightly drafted. In particular, clause 17(3)(c) excludes so-called web logs. It provides for the retention of data relating to IP resolution, and only such data. Anything else is already beyond the scope of what the clause permits. Accordingly, although I entirely agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, I do not believe that it is necessary.
	The hon. Lady sought to look at some of the broader issues on definition, so perhaps this is an appropriate point to respond to some of them. She asked about the definition of “identifier”. We have said that that might be the IP address or another identifier, such as a MAC—media access control—address, which might be needed to specify the relevant identity, which is why the clause is drafted in that way. It is also intended to ensure that the provisions are technology neutral. “IP address resolution” is not a technical or legal term; it is a phrase commonly used to describe the process of attributing an internet connection to an individual or device. That process can require a number of different pieces of communications data of different types. None the less, the Bill carefully defines what it is intended to cover. I want to reassure her in that regard.
	I will try to answer the hon. Lady’s 10 specific questions with the information I have in front of me, but if I miss any I will reflect on the Hansard report of this debate and write to her with any information she is seeking. She asked for a list of the data types in the Bill. It is important that the legislation is technology neutral, and spelling out a detailed list of data types that could change over a short period would not make it future-proof. The Government made it clear during the scrutiny of the draft Communications Data Bill that any long-term replacement legislation must be technology neutral so as to keep pace with technological change in the communications industry. That remains the case.
	The hon. Lady will be well aware of the review that David Anderson is conducting, which is due to report next May. She will also know that, as per the discussions we had on DRIPA, the Bill is time-limited to December 2016. Indeed, she will note that the provisions in clause 17 are time-limited to December 2016, for the very reason that the House will need to return to these matters in the next Parliament. I think that is right and proper, so that the issue can be considered in the round and in the light of the different reports, including the ISC report, David Anderson’s report and the Home Affairs Committee’s report, which was published in the past few days, in order to inform a measured, proper debate in the next Parliament on these issues, recognising the speed at which DRIPA was brought before the House and, equally, to ensure that the legislation remains in the right place.

George Howarth: I have a suggestion. Where a situation is changing rapidly, such issues are sometimes dealt with in legislation by adding a schedule that can then be updated by order. It is not necessarily the best way, but it is one way of dealing with that type of situation.

James Brokenshire: I recognise that in certain circumstances that might be appropriate, but the challenge in this case is the fast-paced nature of technology,
	which means we would always be playing catch-up. The original RIPA legislation was therefore intended to be technology neutral so that, if the technology moved on, it was still able to capture that, just as our criminal law is intended to cover all forms of communications. I think that might be a better way of seeking to achieve that. However, that is part and parcel of David Anderson’s review of RIPA, and therefore the existing legislation and a number of the themes that have been touched on by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate, and also the continuing utility of these provisions.

Julian Smith: It will be almost two years since the Liberal Democrats and one or two other Members scuppered the Communications Data Bill. What is the Minister’s assessment of the risk of waiting until next year, because my concern is that the enemy is not going away?

James Brokenshire: This issue is not going away, and we need to make further changes. I can see the eroding capability of our law enforcement and security agencies. While this plugs an element, there is still more to be done to ensure that our police and security services are able to protect us, and that there is evidence that can be presented in court. On these issues relating to communications data, we are talking about evidence, not merely intelligence. These are hard pieces of information that can be presented in court to secure prosecutions. This is really essential because of the underpinning that it provides to our prosecutorial system.
	The Bill does not incorporate provisions on weblogs, but apps and weblogs can be directly instructive in this respect, and the House will need to confront that in, I hope, an informed way. The reviews that the Intelligence and Security Committee and David Anderson are undertaking will inform that debate rather than its being completely informed by belief or emotion, important as those elements are to ensure that it is properly reflective of the view of our communities and the public. We must ensure that the facts are there as we examine the picture, in order to provide the basis for a rational debate when the House considers the legislation it will need to pass before December 2016.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that another issue, which was skilfully outlined by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), is arbitrage, in the sense of authorities being able to choose one piece of legislation rather than another—for example, as he said, RIPA rather than PACE? Given the complications arising from there being more and more legislation in this area, is it not almost essential to move towards a consolidation to ensure that we entirely understand our rights and responsibilities?

James Brokenshire: I am sure that that issue will be presented in representations made to David Anderson as part of his examination. Clearly, none of us will wish in any way to prejudge the way in which that evidence is presented. He intends to report back by May. That is the right timing to ensure that the new Parliament after the next general election has the benefit of seeing his report, which will have examined these issues in close and careful detail.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about the role of the interception of communications commissioner. He will oversee the acquisition of data retained under clause 17, just as he oversees the acquisition of all communications data retained under DRIPA. The Home Office will ensure that he has the necessary resources to discharge his function.
	The hon. Lady referred to multiple requests for traffic and subscriber data. Public authorities can request communications data only when it is considered necessary and proportionate for one of the purposes set out in DRIPA. A communications service provider could disclose only data that have been requested. It is an operational matter for the public authority as to how it makes such requests for data. Where it holds limited information at the outset of the investigation, it is likely that it will need to make more than one request, which means there may be multiple requests relating to a particular criminal inquiry.
	The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of costs. The totals that were put into the impact assessment published alongside the Bill were based on studies of IP resolution conducted by the industry and prior work with service providers and the industry on similar projects. This has been an informed process in which there has been consultation with individual service providers likely to be most affected by the provisions of the Bill.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling new clause 2 to highlight the oversight of the acquisition of communications data retained under these provisions. The data retention regulations passed earlier this year specifically require communications service providers, subject to a data retention notice, to retain data in such a way as to ensure that they are available without undue delay in response to requests. I assure the Committee that in the vast majority of cases, data retained under this obligation are disclosed in a timely fashion. Of course, things may not always work perfectly, but there are systems in place that seek to resolve such issues should they arise. Indeed, there are industry groups that work on precisely that. The law enforcement community works closely with the communication service providers, and the Home Office seeks to establish the best technical solutions to support that.
	The issue that we hear about more often than that highlighted by the hon. Lady is the broader one of key categories of communications data which communication service providers do not currently retain and which are therefore unavailable to the law enforcement and security agencies that require them. The hon. Lady raised the issue of additional regulations. The provision amends the definition of “relevant communications data”. The regulations use that definition, so there is no need to amend further or to put it in other regulations, because the intention is that they will follow the change being made to this Bill.
	On deep packet inspection, no solution will provide for the retention of or access to the content of a communication. Obviously, it is for the companies themselves to decide how best to implement the legal requirements that would be put upon them, but I wanted to make that point clear.
	On compatibility with the European Court judgment, we are confident that the legislation passed by Parliament this summer, and this Bill, are fully compliant with all relevant legal provisions.
	Although I share the Opposition’s wish to see the most efficient and timely provision of data, I do not believe that the special review proposed by new clause 2 is required. Indeed, if there are concerns they can be referred to David Anderson as part of his review. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw her amendment.
	In new clause 1, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raises the specific and important issue of the position of journalists and others in relation to sensitive provision. He and I debated the issue when the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 made its way through Parliament this summer. Let me be clear that a free press is fundamental to a free society, and the Government are determined that nothing be done to put that at risk. Although most of the focus in the debate has been on journalists, the same issues arise equally in respect of other sensitive occupations, as Members have highlighted. Individuals should be able to speak freely and frankly to their lawyers if we are to have justice in this country. Similarly, patients must be able to speak freely to doctors, and constituents to their Members of Parliament.
	I do not believe that anyone would question that those are important principles, but equally I hope that no one would take issue with the proposition that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies need the tools to carry out their vital roles. They carry out a difficult job day in, day out, protecting the public from crime and from terrorism. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 provides a clear legal basis for many of their critical investigative powers, including the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. The current process is clear and accountable and includes a strong and rigorous system of oversight. I have already explained what communications data are, but they do not contain the content of the communication.
	I should like to point out that the interception of communications commissioner has said that communications data
	“do not contain any details of what was said or written by the sender or the recipient of the communication. As such, the communications data retained by CSPs do not contain any material that may be said to be of professional or legal privilege—the fact that a communication took place does not provide what was discussed or considered or advised.”
	The point that the data do not attract any form of legal or professional privilege is important. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that they are sensitive data that need to be protected accordingly.
	The process of acquiring communications data requires a designated person—a senior officer of a rank stipulated by Parliament—to examine applications for such data, which can be authorised only when the officer is fully satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to acquire those data. The applications are facilitated by individuals known as single points of contact, who are trained in this area and can provide expert advice and support to the designated person.
	During the passage of DRIPA, the Government made it clear that they would fortify the already rigorous regime, including by strengthening the requirement for
	the designated person’s independence from the operation for which data are needed. We have also made it clear that new requirements will deal with the very area—those in sensitive professions—covered by new clause 1. Designated persons will have to give extra consideration to a communications data request involving those in professions with duties of confidentiality, such as journalists, and records must be kept of such applications.
	The changes will be made in an updated acquisition and disclosure of communications data code of practice. I can announce to the Committee this afternoon that we are launching a consultation on the draft acquisition and disclosure of communications data code of practice and on the draft retention of communications data code of practice. I will put copies of the drafts in the Library of the House. There will be a public consultation on the codes before they are finalised for approval by the House. To reassure the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, and to meet the commitment I made to him during the passage of DRIPA, we are now consulting on the codes to ensure that they are properly considered and assessed.
	I have dealt with DRIPA and existing provisions under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, but what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting goes further and therefore touches on broader issues. A system of judicial authorisation was considered in significant detail by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill. Its view was that
	“the current internal authorisation procedure is the right model.”
	It went further, stating that it was
	“not convinced that in reality a magistrate would provide a tougher authorisation test than the current system. Magistrates would not have access to the SPoC expertise to advise them on the necessity and proportionality of each request.”
	As Members will be aware, the Home Affairs Committee examined the very issue of access, under RIPA, to the communications data of those with duties of confidentiality, and it published its report on Saturday. The report includes recommendations about those with duties of confidentiality. The changes we make to the code of practice will reflect the substance of the Select Committee’s recommendations. Notably, the Committee did not recommend the form of judicial oversight suggested in new clause 1.
	David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, is reviewing the powers and capabilities needed under DRIPA, including communications data, and he is due to report by 1 May. As I have already highlighted, the Intelligence and Security Committee is also considering that very point.
	The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will be aware that the interception of communications commissioner is conducting a separate inquiry on this matter. He will report back every six months. He is in the middle of an inquiry into police access to the communications data of journalists, and we fully support that inquiry. The commissioner has said that he expects to complete it by 31 January, which may help the hon. Gentleman. We will of course consider very carefully any recommendations made by the commissioner, and I am sure his conclusions will be studied by the whole House. Indeed, the timing of his report will inform our consideration of the consultation on the codes of practice. I can certainly assure the Committee that the Government
	will take any recommendations very seriously and, where appropriate, we will reflect them in the new code of practice.

John McDonnell: I am grateful to the Minister for launching the consultation on the code of practice. It is important to have a balanced view of the Home Affairs Committee report, which concluded that
	“RIPA is not fit for purpose”.
	Although it did go so far as to make a specific recommendation on the involvement of the courts, the Committee suggested that
	“the Home Office use the current review of the RIPA Code to ensure that law enforcement agencies use their RIPA powers properly.”
	What action has the Minister taken on that point, bearing in mind that a legal action is also taking place at the moment?

James Brokenshire: I am constrained in what I can say because of the legal action that the hon. Gentleman highlights, but I hope he will see that the code of practice and the consultation address a number of the key recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee report that was published on Saturday, such as those on the manner in which the existing legislation is operated in practice.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that David Anderson is conducting a broader examination of the legislation, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and will report in May. That will inform consideration in the next Parliament of the provisions that are on the statute book. I assure him that it will address the issue of separation and the need for additional consideration to be given to requests that touch on protected professions.
	However, I would not want an amendment that was passed today to pre-empt the interception of communications commissioner’s inquiry. We do not know what he will conclude. It is right that we should wait for him to report and then consider his recommendations, rather than make a major change now, when questions have been raised about the benefits and utility of such an approach.
	Finally, I hope to deal swiftly with amendment 11, which would prevent the provisions relating to IP resolution from being brought into force until the interception of communications commissioner had completed his review of the accessing of journalists’ communications data, to which I just referred. I think I can reassure hon. Members on that point. As I have said, the commissioner intends to report by the end of January. The Bill will not complete its passage through this House until after the Christmas recess. After that, it needs to go through the House of Lords and there might have to be consideration of Lords amendments in this House. Even without that, there seems to be no way the Bill could achieve Royal Assent before the commissioner reports at the end of January. We therefore do not believe that amendment 11 is required.
	In the light of what I have said, I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Minister for going through all the questions that I posed. On the basis of what he has said, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18
	 — 
	Authority-to-carry schemes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Clause 19 stand part.
	Clause 20 stand part.
	That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

James Brokenshire: Part 4 and schedule 2 deal with aviation, maritime and rail security. For the benefit of the Committee, I will go through each of the provisions, listen to right hon. and hon. Members’ contributions and then respond to their questions. I welcome the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) to the Opposition Front Bench. He has taken a close interest in these issues.
	Clause 18 provides a new legal basis for the operation of authority-to-carry schemes, which are commonly known as no-fly schemes. We have a scheme in place that relates to passengers being carried to the UK. The clause makes provision for a broader scheme that relates to individuals who are arriving or are expected to arrive in the UK, and individuals who are leaving or are expected to leave the UK.
	Authority to carry is necessary to prevent the entry or return to the UK of foreign nationals who pose a terrorism-related threat and to mitigate the threat of an attack, primarily on aircraft. It is also necessary to disrupt the return to the UK, and prevent the departure from the UK, of British nationals who are subject to legal restrictions on their travel. Under the clause, any scheme must set out the carriers to which it applies and the classes of individuals a carrier may be refused authority to carry to or from the UK. Classes of individuals may be specified in a scheme only if it is necessary in the public interest. When travelling to the UK, that could include persons who are excluded or have been deported from the UK, individuals whose presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good, and those who would otherwise be inadmissible to the UK. It may also include individuals subject to a temporary exclusion order under clause 2.
	When travelling from the UK, carriers might be directed not to carry individuals subject to a TPIM or a post-custodial licence preventing travel following a conviction for a terrorism-related offence. The scheme may also include individuals who have had their passport cancelled or not issued on public interest grounds, or seized under powers in schedule 1. Any scheme must set out the process for carriers to request authority to carry, and state how that authority is granted or refused. That may include requirements for carriers to provide passenger information by a certain time before departure, or for carriers to be able to receive information that grants or refuses authority to carry in a way compatible with the Government’s border system.
	We will work with carriers to resolve any compliance issues, but if a carrier fails to comply, clause 19 provides regulations to impose a civil penalty on those who breach a scheme. The new regulations set out how a penalty will be calculated, imposed and enforced, and
	must provide a means for carriers to object to a proposed penalty. The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the authority-to-carry scheme to which the regulations refer must be laid in Parliament at the same time.
	Clause 20 makes provision for schedule 2 to the Bill. Part 1 of schedule 2 amends passenger, crew and service information relating to aircraft and ships, and may be extended to international trains through secondary legislation. Paragraphs 1(2) and 1(3) mean that a carrier may be required to be able to receive communications about information that it has provided to the border authorities in a way compatible with the Government’s border system. That might be a simple receipt, or an alert about errors in the format of the information.
	Paragraphs 1(4) and 1(7) of schedule 2 allow the regulations to introduce requirements for advance information about persons on flights or voyages to and from the UK that do not operate to a published schedule—collectively referred to as “general aviation” and “general maritime.” The regulations will set out the classes of ships or aircraft to which they apply, the information required, the time by which it must be supplied, and how it is to be supplied. That will allow a much clearer picture of incoming and outgoing traffic and the identification of aircraft and ships that require close attention from the border authorities. Those paragraphs also provide for regulations to impose a civil penalty for a failure to comply with new requirements to provide information. The regulations may set out how a penalty will be calculated, administered and enforced, and make provision for an appeal.

Bob Stewart: The Minister has not mentioned this so far, although I assume he will come to it, but is it correct to say that if a carrier brings someone to this country who we do not want to come, not only will it receive a civil penalty, it has a responsibility to take that person back to whence they came immediately?

James Brokenshire: As my hon. Friend will realise, provisions in the Bill overlap with other issues and provisions. He will be aware of sanctions that are already available and establish penalties for those who have no lawful authority to be in the UK, and of the checks that are obliged on people to ensure that appropriate visa or other requirements are in place. These measures build on that and there are established processes for the return of individuals who should not be here.
	The new transport security provisions in part 2 of schedule 2 build on existing powers and enhance our ability to respond effectively to transport-related terrorism threats. They amend transport security legislation to strengthen existing powers and require certain security measures to be implemented before an operator may operate into the UK or, in the case of ships, a UK port. The schedule makes similar provisions for services in the aviation, maritime and rail transport industries.
	The schedule inserts provisions into the respective aviation, rail and maritime statutes enabling faster collection of security related information from operators. It provides enabling powers to make regulations, imposing a wider range of methods for electronic service of security directions or requests for information, to ensure that
	security directions become effective in the shortest possible time. In addition, it inserts a power into the Aviation Security Act 1982 for the Secretary of State to make regulations to introduce civil sanctions for non-compliance by the aviation industry, with information requests or security directions subject to the affirmative procedure.

Julian Smith: We are all aware that Eurotunnel is expanding its services, with more train services going to the continent. Will the Minister confirm that the provisions will apply to those services?

James Brokenshire: Under existing regulations and requirements, existing Eurostar and freight services through the channel tunnel are already obliged to meet security requirements on screening and other steps. The intent behind the provisions in the Bill is to look to a future where we have open access, and ensure we have the ability to impose similar controls, assurances and protections in relation to security. It is precisely for that future-proofing that we are introducing the provisions. I hope that explanation is helpful to the Committee.

David Hanson: There has been a change on the Opposition Front Bench, while the Minister has had to continue, but I assure him that he will have our support on this group.
	There is a substantial and severe threat of terrorist attack in the United Kingdom and the Opposition support the broad thrust of these measures. The Minister did not explicitly say it, but the explanatory notes indicate that about 500 individuals have travelled to Syria and Iraq because of their wish to join terrorist organisations, in particular ISIL. The measures are designed to enhance legislation—section 124 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, put in place by the previous Labour Government, and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Authority to Carry) Regulations 2012—in response to the changed circumstances. We support the broad thrust of the measures.
	I have a few questions for the Minister and I hope he will reflect on them. They relate mostly to consultation, cost and scope. The Minister said that clauses 18 and 19 form the main provisions for the changes to authority-to-carry schemes, and that clause 20 and schedule 2 amend the law on the provision of information from carriers to the Secretary of State. The explanatory notes state that the Minister has undertaken a consultation, but I think he will recognise that the consultation was swift, if I may say so, and relatively short. I would welcome information on who responded to the consultation and what the responses were. If he does not have that information today, perhaps he could write to me.
	I raise those issues because the Government’s impact assessment makes it clear that the measures, although welcome, relate to border security and will cost UK-registered businesses about £2.1 million net cost a year, with start-up costs approaching £10 million, at £9.7 million. The Minister has information relating to 11 scheduled registered carriers, but he will know that 144 carriers were not included in the assessment. Many carriers do not currently have the systems, which are referred to in previous legislation, in place. Scheduled carriers may be required to install interactive systems
	that would mean no-fly alerts and passenger screening requirements provided directly into carriers’ systems. The impact assessment makes it clear that while there are 11 registered carriers, of which only one already uses the system the Government want, there are 144 carriers operating scheduled flights into and out of the UK that are not UK-registered, of which only 11 use the system the Government want to introduce. I would welcome some clarity from the Minister not just as to the discussions he has had with the registered carriers, but on what assessment he has made of the wider costs for those carriers that are not registered. For a non-interactive carrier, the estimated cost of implementing an interactive system is £975,000, with annual maintenance costs of £125,000. That means that there could be costs of around £139 million to non-UK carriers who do not have those systems in place.
	The impact assessment says:
	“The consultation to gather relevant data was brief. Whilst data was provided by a sample of UK carriers we cannot be sure they are fully representative. In addition different carriers may face different costs dependent on their size or their existing systems. In the absence of this data we assume that carriers are all affected in the same way.”
	That is the Government’s own impact assessment and it is really important that, as part of our consideration this afternoon, we have some indication from the Minister of the consultation responses. He may well already have published these—sometimes things pass one by in opposition—and if so, I would be grateful if he could refer me to where they are. If not, I would be grateful if he published the responses to the consultation.
	It is also important—the Minister has touched on this—that the clauses ultimately include rail, maritime and non-scheduled aviation traffic as part of the regime that he is seeking to introduce. But I believe—I would welcome his confirmation—that there has been limited, or dare I say nil, consultation with rail, maritime and other suppliers. The Minister has indicated that there will be affirmative resolutions on these matters, but I would welcome him confirming at what stage he intends to undertake further consultation on costs and implementation with rail and maritime providers.
	I have had a helpful brief from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which has raised a number of issues, some of which the Minister will be able to answer. But it is important that we are clear that the Minister’s aspiration—one shared by the Labour party—to have exit and entry checks undertaken at the earliest opportunity is separate from the measures in the Bill, particularly given the difficulties we have had with the e-Borders programme recently, the cancellation of e-Borders and the progress that the Government seek on an entry and exit check by April 2015. Helpfully the Minister has today answered a parliamentary question to indicate that that is still the Government’s objective but I just wanted to examine the relationship between the proposals in the clause, which may not be in law until February or March next year, and the wider exit and entry checks the Government are seeking to introduce.
	I would particularly welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the measures in the Bill are fully compatible with EU law and with the laws of other states that passengers will travel to and from and with whose laws carriers must comply. It is important that we put in place measures in our own legislation but I would welcome
	the Minister’s consideration of the compatibility between them and our obligations to our European colleagues and elsewhere.
	The Labour party supports the measures because of the threat and the need to monitor and to take effective action against not just those coming to the UK, but those leaving the UK. The need to ensure that we prevent individuals leaving these shores from undertaking terrorist acts is paramount. The Minister will not find a cigarette paper between us on dealing with that issue but I hope that he is able to reflect on the points I have made today on three issues: cost, compatibility with other legislation in Europe and beyond, and the key question of implementation, not just in terms of current carriers but in terms of the carriers who are not registered but who do currently travel both to and from the UK.

Khalid Mahmood: While endorsing everything my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) has said and in restating some of the issues around costs and capability, I think it important in considering this part of the Bill not to experience the same things that we have experienced before. I am thinking of Abu Rumaysah who unfortunately made his way across the sea to join ISIS, putting on his Twitter account:
	“What a shoddy security system Britain must have to allow me to breeze through Europe to the Islamic State.”
	I am sure that we all want this part of the Bill to work to prevent that sort of thing from happening. In doing so, however, we must ensure that we provide proper consultation and enough time to deal with this properly.
	There are concerns about how we look at the problem, particularly in respect of what notice carriers have when people can book tickets on their phones, their iPads or any other electronic instrument and can get straight to the port, sometimes by rail and sometimes by air. There are important issues about the speed with which people are able to get to the port after booking at the last minute. How do we move forward and improve that system? Answering that means contending with some very serious issues.
	I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some of the reasonable work that has been done on this issue, particularly by Sussex police. The police there have a programme called the “BIG MAC”, but unfortunately this does not mean that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is having a late lunch. In fact, it refers to evidence-based risk factors for assessing people when they travel to or exit a port. It is based on “identifying, assessing and referring”, and as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, this entails having sufficient staff and security personnel at the border. She said she was prepared to commit additional staff to deal with this issue, and I would fully endorse that sentiment.
	BIG MAC is based first on behaviour, the B. It is assessed during an exam, and looks at the person’s mental health, physical health, reaction when they are stopped, and their beliefs when they are questioned at port. The next aspect is identifying, the I, and meaning and belonging, and the attitudes expressed when the following issues are raised: family, friends, society, cultural change, integration and diversity, dissatisfaction with life, and seeking change, adventure and excitement.
	Then there is a section on grievances, the G, which involves injustice, threats and vulnerabilities. This covers the “them and us” thought process; the dehumanising of identity, beliefs, culture, society and religion; people’s place in society, culture and religion; any history of violence, whether victim or offender; and setting events such as past police interventions, bullying, abuse at home, drinks, drugs and so forth. The next part deals with motivations, the M, either personal or externally driven, and covers religious, political, ideological, cultural, single issues or personal issues; financial aspects; and family or friends. It then deals with attitudes, the A, towards criminal offending, harmful means, being dominant, controlling or submissive and susceptible, and activism and participation.
	Finally, the C in BIG MAC means capability factors, and these cover knowledge, skills and competencies such as fighting, training, ideologies, occupation-related skills, IT, medical and so on; access to these through equipment, networks, clubs, individuals and IT; criminality and intervention factors, including the use of violence and attitudes towards violent means; and travel history. This BIG MAC process allows security personnel to do their job in accordance with strategies that have been developed. I would be pleased to pass this information to the Minister if he wants to understand how the Sussex police are dealing with the problem.
	The particular person associated with the project is Detective Sergeant—perhaps he should be Superintendent —Mike Redmond. He is based at Gatwick and has done a huge amount of work on psychological assessment in relation to these issues. He has put this plan forward, and is working with the port authorities and security personnel to ensure that these sorts of recognition factors are in place so that people can be stopped and dealt with properly and formally. It is very important that we look at these sorts of factors, but that will only happen if we have the processes to do it.

Bob Stewart: In the old days, when I was working with the security services in Northern Ireland, it used to be called profiling. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are looking at a form of profiling again?

Khalid Mahmood: The hon. Gentleman is far more informed on these matters than I am, and I certainly would not argue with him about that. This is a similar approach, but it psychologically categorises the processes within that and shows how it can be dealt with. It is easier for the people operating these systems to be able to recognise particular behavioural patterns and to deal with them. This does do what the hon. Gentleman says, therefore, but it is important that this has already been designed and that security personnel are working with it. In order to meet the issues raised in clause 18, it is important that we have such a system in place, but the only way we can do that is by sharing best practice. That has already been done by Sussex police, and I commend that approach to the Minister and hope he takes lessons from the work that has already been done by Detective Sergeant Mike Redmond. We should all acknowledge the great work he has done.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the warm welcome given to these provisions from all parts of the House this afternoon. That is because there is a recognition of the nature of the threat we now face, and of the fact that we face an enduring threat from terrorism. There are particular terrorist groups that will seek to attack aircraft and other forms of transport, which is why we must remain vigilant and continue to challenge ourselves on what further improvements can be made to legislation and the schemes that are in place to ensure we have the right information to prevent those intent on conducting such acts from boarding aircraft, trains or other forms of transport—and, indeed, ensure that our various forms of transport conduct appropriate searches and checks to make sure that appropriate standards are met and adhered to. We seek to respond through that approach and the pragmatic, practical measures set out in the Bill.
	As the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) highlighted, there is the further requirement for additional regulations and details of specific schemes to be brought before this House. As that detail is then added to, it is appropriate that ongoing consultation take place with the relevant industry sectors. I shall say a little more about that in response to the various points the right hon. Gentleman raised.
	I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood) for bringing to my attention the work of DS Mike Redmond and the Sussex police based at Gatwick airport, and how bringing forward proposals is obviously about their practical implementation. Where there is good practice, there should be networks through which it can be shared, leading to greater consistency of approach. I know the police take that seriously, with the relevant structures they have enabling them to look at practice and share knowledge and learning. The work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman sounded very interesting, and I look forward to seeing further details of the BIG MAC that he will no doubt be sending through to me.
	In terms of the utilisation of the powers, if it is necessary and proportionate we will use powers as a means of putting special additional measures in place to combat current threats. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his previous experience how we look at the threat assessments that are maintained by the joint terrorism analysis centre, and how that may mean that additional security enhancements need to be put in place in respect of particular routes or modes of transport. That will inform some of the additional protective security-type powers that could be drawn on in respect of these provisions, and therefore, those specific provisions would be used where justified by the prevailing terrorist threat and the assessed risk.
	The right hon. Member for Delyn highlighted the issue of costs, and rightly referred to the regulatory impact assessment that was published alongside the Bill. On the number of airlines that were engaged—I will come on to talk about who was consulted—many airlines within the big global groups of airlines will share common booking systems. Therefore, whether they are part of one alliance or another, that will determine a number of the elements of the systems that may be in place, and smaller airlines may piggyback on some of the bigger airlines’ systems. All airlines are not necessarily operating specific individual systems; they
	may be utilising some of the bigger carriers’ systems as part of their global booking systems, because of the alliances and groups that they are part of.
	The cost to the Government of an interactive advance passenger information system is currently £1.2 million per year, and the staffing costs of maintaining a help desk to assist with interactive API is around £302,000 annually. Border Force estimates that an additional £82,000 will be required for additional staff to bolster the help desk as a result of the legislation. Consultation with airlines has shown that they recognise the significant security and financial benefits that flow from interactive API systems.
	Various Governments are increasingly requiring that their own carriers implement these types of systems and solutions, and carriers are likely to incur set-up costs, whether required to do so by the UK Government or not. The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the reference in the explanatory notes to 500 subjects of interest having travelled to Syria and Iraq from this country. It is important to understand, given the nature of the travelling threat, that individuals have travelled to that area from many other countries across Europe and across the globe, and there is a growing recognition of the utility and importance of being able to use advance passenger information. A number of countries globally are seeking to align that approach in this area.
	On the proportion of advance passenger information that we hold, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his parliamentary questions to me, we receive advance passenger information for just over 80% of all passengers travelling to and from the UK, which is up considerably from just over 60% at the end of 2009. That includes 96% of all air passengers. According to the European Commission, that is the highest for any European country and is among the best in the world.
	As the impact assessment indicated, we consulted all UK-registered airlines, and their comments are reflected in the impact assessment, which the right hon. Gentleman has obviously seen. I will reflect after this debate on what further details it may be possible to provide, and if I may, I will write to him on any further information or background that can be shared.
	On briefing others, we have briefed maritime carriers and Eurotunnel, but we will be consulting further on the detail of the regulations to be put before Parliament. With regard to rail, as I indicated in a previous intervention, the existing operators are already covered by a great deal of the existing legislative framework, but we will seek to continue to consult those that may be affected by any further changes introduced under authority-to-carry schemes, and it is absolutely appropriate that we do so, as the right hon. Gentleman has highlighted. On the broader legal issues he proffered, it is not for me to give legal advice on the Floor of the House, but I can say to him genuinely and directly that we have undertaken a full assessment of the legal implications of these proposals and consider them to be compatible.
	On the work the Government are doing to introduce exit checks by spring next year, the provisions before this House are connected but separate, if I may put it in those terms. Information about passengers departing from the UK will inform the operation of outbound authority-to-carry arrangements, which the Bill will put on a statutory basis. Obviously, that is a significant difference between what is in this Bill and the existing
	authority-to-carry scheme introduced just before the Olympic games, which is focused purely on the inbound. The intent is to have statutory underpinning and a statutory framework in respect of the outbound, too.
	I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr that legislation is in place to direct carriers on the form in which they must provide passenger information to the Government’s border system. That includes the timeliness with which data are provided relative to when the passenger departs to or from the UK. Obviously, the Bill’s provisions will also give specific statutory underpinning to that, to ensure that information is provided in a timely fashion.
	I noted what the right hon. Member for Delyn said about e-Borders. The tone of this afternoon’s debate has broadly been one where everyone has shared the same approach, but I say to him that this Government have had to deal with some significant problems with a number of the previous Government’s systems, e-Borders being one of them. We have therefore made the necessary changes and checks to ensure that we have a system that delivers what it needs to deliver.
	I am grateful for the support that has been provided from all parts of the House for these provisions, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 19 and 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Aid and Advice

That the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) (Advocacy Exceptions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Employment Agencies, Etc.

That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 11 November, be approved.—(Harriett Baldwin.)
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Campaign against “legal highs”

Cathy Jamieson: In presenting this petition, I would like to thank my constituent Yvonne Chafey, who first began a local
	campaign to stop legal highs, and the
	Kilmarnock Standard
	and the
	Daily Record
	for publicising the issue. Hundreds of people in my constituency have signed the petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the sale of substances commonly referred to as “legal highs” constitutes a clear and present danger to public health, and in particular to the health of young people; further that the Petitioners believe that, at present, there is a severe lack of information available to the public regarding the potential physical and psychological risks associated with the human consumption of such substances; and further that the risks associated with the human consumption of such substances varies depending on the consumer, but are increased if the substance is consumed in conjunction with alcohol or other psychoactive drugs.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider whether certain substances commonly referred to as “legal highs” should be reclassified in order to enhance public awareness of the risks associated with their consumption and further requests that the House urges the Government to consider whether greater support should be provided to individuals and families affected by the use of such substances.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001405]

Under-occupancy penalty

Julie Hilling: I wish to put on record my thanks to Bolton against the bedroom tax, which initiated a postcard campaign that has now been expanded to a paper petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the Bolton West constituency,
	Declares that the bedroom tax (otherwise known as the spare room subsidy) punishes the most vulnerable people in society; further that many of those affected by the bedroom tax will need to downsize but there are not enough properties available for them to do so; further that in Bolton, there are only 13 available properties and 3,000 affected households; further that because many of those affected cannot downsize, it is simply a tax on households which are already struggling; further that seventy per cent of those affected are disabled; further that the revenue raised by this tax is a drop in the ocean compared to the money lost through tax evasion and avoidance; further that those affected cannot afford to wait for a change of government; further that lives are being ruined because parents are being ejected from the family home; and further that a postcard campaign in the Bolton West constituency on this issue resulted in 150 postcards being sent to the Member of Parliament for Bolton West. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to revoke the bedroom tax.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001406]

Railway line adjacent to North Werrington (Peterborough)

Stewart Jackson: The petitions are from the residents of the Peterborough constituency in North Werrington and Peakirk.
	The first petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Peterborough constituency,
	Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to North Werrington; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 582 residents of North Werrington. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs through North Werrington; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through North Werrington.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001408]

Railway line adjacent to Peakirk (Peterborough)

Stewart Jackson: My second petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Peterborough,
	Declares that Network Rail have upgraded the continuous railway line adjacent to Peakirk; further that Network Rail estimate that there will be substantial increases in freight traffic through the village of up to 23,360 additional trains per year; further that no mitigating measures have been offered to reduce the significant increases in noise, vibration and pollution created by the increase in freight traffic; and further that a local petition on this matter was signed by 170 residents of Peakirk. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to enter into discussion with Network Rail to discuss and agree plans to introduce noise mitigation measures such as the erection of acoustic timber fencing and plans to fit secondary glazing and/or acoustic trickle vents where required for properties adjacent to the train line which runs adjacent to Peakirk; further request that the House urges the Government to encourage Network Rail to put in place plans to plant an evergreen tree belt to help absorb particulates emitted by diesel locomotives; and further request that the House urges the Government to ask Peterborough City Council to consider a reduction in council tax for those properties which will be directly affected by increases in freight traffic through Peakirk.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001409]

PATIENT SAFETY AND MEDICAL INNOVATION

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Harriett Baldwin.)

Sarah Wollaston: Like books, one should never judge a Bill by its cover. Later this week, the Medical Innovation Bill reaches Report stage in the House of Lords, but I would like to demonstrate that it is fundamentally flawed in its premise, it is unnecessary, it removes essential protections for patients, and it increases the risks of their exposure to maverick doctors. I believe it will undermine not only patients’ safety but medical innovation and so will have precisely the opposite effect to that intended.
	Under current law, a doctor is negligent if he or she acts in a way which no responsible body of medical opinion would support, or which is irrational or illogical—the so-called Bolam test, as refined in the case of Bolitho. The Bill would rewrite the law on clinical negligence and a doctor whose decision to treat would not be supported by any responsible body of medical opinion, or was illogical or irrational, would be able to call on a new Saatchi defence if they fulfilled the procedural requirements of the Bill. That is important: the Bill’s protection of doctors applies if the procedural requirements are met. The Bill states:
	“For the purposes of taking a responsible decision to depart from the existing range of accepted medical treatments for a condition, the doctor must…obtain the views of one or more appropriately qualified doctors in relation to the proposed treatment”.
	There is no requirement for the second doctor to have seen the patient or even read their notes, and no requirement for them to be independent. They could be working at the same private clinic. It is of little reassurance that the treating doctor must
	“take full account of the views”
	of the second doctor if the second doctor is in collusion with the first in that treatment, which may be unreasonable.
	If the Bill is passed, we will put patient safety at risk and we will no doubt have to return to amend the legislation subsequently. Let me quote from a letter forwarded to me by a constituent who had met a visitor to my constituency who managed to convince him utterly that this individual’s company had found a cure—a miraculous treatment—for cancer, but was being obstructed by a vast conspiracy in the medical community. In the letter, David Noakes, who describes himself as the chief executive of a biotechnology company, refers to a compound he calls GcMAF, which he describes as
	“a human protein, present in 5 billion healthy people, that removes a number of diseases, including terminal stage 4 cancer. It has no side effects.”
	He attaches a couple of scientific-y looking papers, which have no bearing on proving its clinical effectiveness. Mr Noakes continues:
	“It’s always difficult to get feedback, but we have hundreds of superb results. In Guernsey, we treat over 100 people and…have 50 successes including 10 excellent cancer results. We have perfect feedback in our German and Swiss clinics, where our 7 doctors reduce tumours at the rate of 25% a week”.
	He says that he cannot do it in the UK
	“because the law is so destructive.”
	Here is the bit that really worries me. Mr Noakes states:
	“But we state that if you have terminal stage 4…cancer, have not had chemotherapy, and you do the”
	so-called
	“GcMAF protocol, you have an 80% chance of being cancer free in a year.”
	In other words, what the company is specifically saying to people is that they can look forward to that result if they do not have chemotherapy—it is actively encouraging people not to have evidence-based treatment and promising that it has a cure for cancer.
	Mr Noakes says that
	“The pharmaceutical industry is not interested in”
	this treatment, because there is no profit in it—
	“it is too cheap, and can’t be patented”.
	He says:
	“The chemo lobby is so powerful it has changed British law so that doctors are only allowed to prescribe the poison of chemo for cancer when there are…better treatments.”
	He adds, specifically:
	“Lord Maurice Saatchi is trying to get that law changed with his Medical Innovation bill, but against so powerful a lobby”—
	and so on. In other words, for this individual and the seven doctors to whom he refers, the Bill would be carte blanche. They see it as a Bill that would provide them with protections. The Bill specifically refers to medical practitioners and doctors as the people who can take this forward—not homeopaths or unregistered doctors. He says that he has seven doctors in his company. If one of those seven consulted another doctor in the clinic, it is highly likely that they would agree that this was an eminently sensible treatment.

Julian Huppert: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate on an important subject. It is a shame that more people are not in the Chamber to discuss it. There are some very real concerns. Does she agree that people who are terminally ill may be desperate for treatment, and that simply makes them prey to people who may be unethical, who may be trying to push the envelope, and who may be doing things that would harm them but that sound quite good?

Sarah Wollaston: I agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency a medically qualified individual attempted to set up a cancer conference. It had to be pointed out that under the Cancer Act 1939 it is not legal to advertise cures for cancer. The Bill would allow people to circumvent the Cancer Act. How easy is it to get a reference to a miracle treatment planted into a magazine article, for example? This is the real danger here. While the Cancer Act protects people against blatant advertising, it does not provide protection against the back-door advertising that we already see. What is to stop individuals who are absolutely desperate—as my hon. Friend has said—going to doctors with articles saying, “This is a cure. I want you to refer me to this clinic.”

Julian Huppert: I will try to resist the temptation to intervene too often. Does she agree that this is not just about cancer? We have already had homeopathic doctors, who may practise medicine as well as homeopathy, claiming that they have powerful treatments for Ebola that the World Health Organisation will not let them work on. The Bill would open the door for all sorts of quacks who will do serious harm in the name of medical innovation.

Sarah Wollaston: I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that this is not just about cancer treatment but about a wide range of surgical treatments and therapies for any number of conditions.
	If the Bill is about reducing medical litigation so that doctors are free to undertake innovative treatments, why do those who are involved in medical litigation say that there is no need for it? The Medical Defence Union, the Medical Protection Society, even the NHS Litigation Authority, are clear that the law, with the Bolam and Bolitho tests, is well established. They feel that the Bill could increase uncertainty. The MPS briefing says:
	“Fundamentally, current law allows doctors acting responsibly to innovate, and this Bill is unnecessary. The time has come for the debate to shift towards improving education about the present law, rather than confusing the law through a new piece of legislation.”
	That is another point that is worth bearing in mind.
	Far from promoting medical innovation, the Bill could undermine recruitment to genuine clinical trials. If someone had been persuaded by the likes of the doctors in the letter that I read out that there was a miraculous treatment for their terminal cancer, why would they wish to be enrolled in a clinical trial and be part of a randomised trial? If they could circumvent that and go along to a private clinic, why would they do that? Medical research does not just answer the question about whether a treatment works; it also helps answer the question whether a therapy or procedure has serious side effects. The history of medicine is littered with good intentions and innovations that seemed like a good idea but turned out to have disastrous side effects.
	I think, for example, of the use of 100% oxygen for premature babies, which led to blindness, or the use of steroids after head injury, which might have seemed like a good idea at the time but led to many, many deaths until it was realised that it was a dangerous innovation. There is an assumption that all innovation must be good innovation, but much innovation can be dangerous.
	The randomised double-blind trial has been one of the greatest advances in medical science and has provided enormous protection for people. I look back at my time in medicine. Fairly soon after I qualified in 1986, I was a junior doctor on the Hedley Atkins breast unit. The newly appointed consultant is now Professor Sir Mike Richards, who is one of the country’s foremost and respected experts in cancer, formerly the cancer czar. He does not think the Bill will protect patients. We need to listen to the opinion of those who have serious concerns about such Bills. When I was working on that cancer unit in the 1980s, very many of the patients who did not survive at the time would survive today going to the same unit with similar conditions. That is because we now know what the best treatments are. We know that not from a series of unlinked anecdotal treatments, but because of former patients who were enrolled in clinical trials.
	The accusation sometimes made is, “Aren’t clinical trials just experimenting on people?” Far from it. There seems to be a benefit for everyone taking part in a clinical trial, even those who are not receiving a treatment that turns out to be more effective. If the Bill is passed and undermines enrolment in clinical trials, we will be
	doing a grave disservice to medical innovation, and it will be to our great shame to have done so. I would like the Minister to address that point when he responds.
	That is a fundamental flaw in the Bill. There is also a fundamental flaw in the premise that separate anecdotal treatments can progress medical research. Interestingly, clause 1(5) states:
	“Nothing in this section permits a doctor to carry out treatment for the purposes of research”.
	In other words, it specifically precludes the treatments being linked in any way, so we will learn nothing from these treatments. Lord Saatchi’s premise is that his Bill will advance medical knowledge, but there is no evidence that it will advance medical knowledge an inch because we will not be able to answer that fundamental question about whether there are unintended harms from the treatments or any long-term benefits.
	Where will the evidence be of benefit from those “innovative treatments”? Will the Minister look carefully at that, and be clear in responding? The list of bodies opposed to the Medical Innovation Bill is very long—the Academy for Healthcare Science, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, Action Against Medical Accidents, the Association of Medical Research Charities, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the British Medical Association, the British Pharmacological Society, Cancer Research UK, the Good Thinking Society, Healthwatch, the Medical Protection Society, the Medical Defence Union, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the NHS Health Research Authority and the NHS Litigation Authority.
	Richard Francis QC, one of our most respected national authorities on patient safety, opposes the legislation. I think that we ought to reflect carefully on his words:
	“If there is misunderstanding then it should be corrected by guidance, not by legislation which exposes vulnerable patients to unjustified risk and deprives them of remedies when mistreated by those who have no acceptable justification for what they have done.”
	Those are very serious words indeed. The legislation is also opposed by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal College of Radiologists. That is an important list.
	There is a powerful lobby in favour of this legislation that purports that those who oppose it are somehow dinosaurs.
	I urge the Minister to read the letter from 100 leading oncologists that was published in The Times on 13 November, which states:
	“We devote our professional lives to treating patients with cancer and advancing research that contributes to finding more effective treatments for cancer. We neither want nor need Lord Saatchi’s bill. We do not believe that it will help our patients or future patients. We are dismayed that the bill is being promoted as offering hope to patients and their families when it will not make any meaningful difference to progress in treating cancer.
	The law of medical negligence does not hinder our work or prevent innovation. There have been significant advances across all the modalities of cancer treatment over recent decades. There was no call for this change in the law from the medical profession. The current law already allows us to use off label drugs and to try new treatments when they are in patients’ best interests.
	We are concerned that rather than promoting responsible scientific innovation in the treatment of cancer, the Medical Innovation Bill will actually encourage irresponsible experimentation
	producing nothing more than anecdotal ‘evidence’, at the potential expense of causing serious harm and suffering to patients, their families and carers. Innovation is best carried out within the discipline of controlled clinical trials, not by individual doctors acting on a whim.”
	I think that sums it up well.
	Were we to title the Bill correctly, it would be called the medical anecdote Bill. We should be saying that it makes provision in relation to anecdotal treatments in medical treatment. If we titled it correctly, there would be no question whatsoever of its having Government support. I urge the Minister in the strongest terms please not to give the Bill Government backing. To do so, I think, would be to our great shame. We would undoubtedly have to return to amend it. It would put patients at risk, and it would put recruitment to clinical trials and genuine innovation at risk.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and about the many good things the Government have done to promote genuine innovation. I will not detain the House by offering that list now, because I know the Minister has done more than anyone I can think of in the House to promote true medical innovation. I therefore hope he will recognise that the Bill would do quite the opposite, and ensure that it does not progress.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and the excellent comments she made, although she should keep an eye on her Committee—I am sure she will—which I believe is currently questioning on the subjects of complementary medicine and homeopathic doctors in her absence. It is also good to have the Minister here. Between the three of us, we have a commitment to the idea of evidence-based medicine, which sadly not all Members of the House appear to share. I hope we are all singing from the same hymn sheet in that regard, as my hon. Friend has already set out so eloquently.
	Suffering from terminal cancer, or any other serious condition, is clearly awful for anyone, so I understand why people would want to try something in the desperate hope that it might alleviate the problem and help them to survive. I absolutely understand that rationale. However, it does have real risks, and that is part of the problem with the Bill.
	Of course we should innovate. We come up with new techniques all the time. As my hon. Friend said, we are far better at treating things now than we have been over time. However, we must avoid using the politician’s syllogism: we must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do this. That is not how it works, but unfortunately it seems to be the approach taken in the Bill.
	As we have heard, there does not seem to be a serious problem of stultification and lack of innovation. Oncologist after oncologist will say how they are able to innovate. However, there is a system of research ethics regarding how we decide what is acceptable and what is not. There are ways of making sure that we do not just look at things with a selective bias. The paper that my hon. Friend mentioned described two patients who had had some reductions in tumour sizes, but it said nothing about how many patients had been looked at, or about the outcomes for those who had not been treated. If we
	pick people out from a large enough pool, we will always find strange things that we can write about or make a lot of money from by setting up a company, if we are allowed to go ahead.
	We have to avoid dealing merely with anecdote, because that will lead to people getting substantially sub-optimal treatments. The safeguards in the Bill—I have been through all the proposed amendments as well—are very thin. As my hon. Friend said, asking another doctor makes little difference when that doctor could be somebody else who believes in the same slightly bizarre theory. Moreover, the doctor could be asking another doctor who works for them, because there is quite a hierarchy in medicine. A junior doctor would not feel able to challenge a more senior doctor on something like this.
	This Bill tries to solve a problem that does not seem to exist, according to the doctors and lawyers involved. It puts patients at risk, especially if these innovative treatments replace standard treatments that are known to be effective. It opens the door to quacks of all persuasion who want to try out their pet theories but have no proper background and no evidence.
	I hope that on Friday, their lordships will see the problems with the Bill and that they will not proceed with it and bring it to this place. I sincerely hope that the Minister, whom I respect for his efforts to improve innovation and his understanding of the role of an evidence base, will make sure that we do not have Government backing for such a Bill. If it does make it here as a private Member’s Bill, I am confident that this House will make the right choice to protect patient safety.

George Freeman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) for securing this Adjournment debate and giving the House, albeit only a few of us, the chance to debate what is, I agree, a very important issue that is the subject of live discussion in another place. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) for his comments.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes is a tireless campaigner for good health care and good medicine, as Member of Parliament for Totnes, as a member of the medical profession, and as Chair of the Health Committee. I very much welcome her contribution. I will first deal with the points that she made, then set the scene and provide a little context about the Government’s view of this Bill, and then close with what I hope may be some reassurance about our commitment to patient safety.
	My hon. Friend made a number of important points, which I repeat merely to signal that I have heard them loud and clear. She said that the Bill might risk creating a carte blanche, or open door, situation as an inadvertent side effect of unjustified and unsubstantiated claims. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned homeopathy and other non-evidence-based forms of medicine. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes highlighted the danger of relying too heavily on the protection of a clinician merely seeking the endorsement of a fellow clinician. Implicit in her concern is the fact that most of us could probably find one person in life to support our own prejudices, however well intentioned.
	My hon. Friend highlighted the risk of unethical approaches and the danger of back-door promotions, which none of us wants to see. On the danger of undermining public and patient trust in clinical trials, she knows that I am passionate about achieving precisely the opposite. We are very proud in this country that more and more of our patients are enrolling in clinical trials. The NHS is running a fabulously successful programme of promoting research medicine, and this year the numbers are up by 24% or 25%. That is good for patients, good for NHS research, and good for our life sciences sector.
	My hon. Friend has highlighted the danger of accidental errors across the system today. We live with that risk, but I hear her point that it would be a disaster if the Bill inadvertently made errors more likely, rather than less. She also raised concerns about the Bill not promoting evidence-based medicine or requiring claims to be based on clear patient benefit. She made a specific point about the Cancer Act 1939, which I will follow up and deal with by letter, if I may.
	Most concerning of all, my hon. Friend ran through a very long list of medical and health organisations that she described as being opposed to the Bill. I will look into that following the debate because—I will say more about this in a moment—we do not want the measure to be divisive or to alienate or undermine the consensus about the importance of good medical research in the UK and the NHS. I take that point seriously. My hon. Friend flagged up the letter from 100 oncologists that appeared in newspapers recently. Since that was published, there have been a number of discussions about—and, indeed, amendments tabled to—the Bill in the Lords. I want to have a look and make sure which, if any, of those concerns are extant as the Bill completes its passage through the Lords. I will say more about that in a moment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge endorsed those comments. I note in particular his comments about the importance of evidence-based medicine. As with so many issues that we deal with in this House, a good test is to ask: would I apply this to myself? Certainly, for myself and my family, I am a strong believer in evidence-based medicine. I am a believer in innovation as well, but my hon. Friend made an important point. I particularly enjoyed his mention of the politician’s syllogism: “We must do something; this is something; ergo, we should do it.” I assure him that that is not in any way the reason for the Government’s benign support for the Bill’s principles and the case it seeks to make to promote innovation. I align myself hugely with his comments about not wanting to open the door for quackery.

Sarah Wollaston: Lord Saatchi has said that 20,000 people support his Bill, but if people are asked whether they are in favour of medical innovation, they are likely to answer yes, and if the same people are asked whether they are likely to support medical anecdotes, I think they are likely to say no. Sometimes the answer depends on the question being asked.

George Freeman: I am sure my hon. Friend is right. She makes an excellent point about the nature of the question having an impact on the answer one gets. I
	have repeated the concerns because they bear repetition and are important, and I want to signal that I am taking them seriously.
	I want to set the scene in terms of the Government’s commitment to patient safety, the context in which innovative medicines are being developed, and the changes in the sector that are challenging some of the traditional methods of drug development. I will then address some of the specific points that my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Cambridge have made and say something about the Government’s position on the Bill.
	The Government’s response to the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust public inquiry, led by Sir Robert Francis, “Hard Truths: The Journey to Putting Patients First”, demonstrated beyond any doubt, I hope, the Government’s absolute commitment to creating a new culture of openness, compassion and accountability and a renewed focus on patient safety right at the heart of the NHS.
	The truth is that the NHS is one of the safest health care systems in the world. I am delighted to report that, in the recent Commonwealth Fund report comparing the US health care system with those of 11 other nations, the UK came top. However, there is always scope to improve health care standards universally and to reduce avoidable harm further. That is why the Secretary of State set the ambition this June, at the launch of the Sign up to Safety campaign, to reduce avoidable harm by half and save 6,000 lives over the next three years.
	We have put patient safety right at the heart of the Government’s agenda for health. For that reason, I am delighted that the Government are actively supporting the Bill on patient safety sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). The Bill has several important provisions on the use of data to drive safety across the system and to ensure transparency and accountability in health outcomes.
	Why do we need to look at mechanisms for promoting innovation? My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes was kind enough to signal her awareness that the Government—particularly me, as the first Minister for life sciences—have taken an active role in trying to promote it. The reason is that we face a challenge in the field of drug discovery and development, as well as in medical technology generally. There is a challenge and an opportunity.
	The challenge is that the more we know about disease, genetics and data—the datasets at our disposal in the NHS, and the history of drug reactions and the way in which patients respond to diseases differently—the more we realise that patients respond to the same disease or the same drug in different ways, and that those ways can often be predicted. These insights are beginning to change the way in which drugs are developed.
	Increasingly, we do not need the one-size-fits-all, blockbuster drugs that we have traditionally expected the industry to bring us after long, slow, protracted and increasingly expensive clinical trials and randomised, double-blind trials. Of course, those trials have a strong part to play in our system, but the more we know about the nature of disease and the extraordinary breakthroughs that our biomedical and life sciences sector is making, the more the agenda shifts to designing around patients, as well as around tissues, data and genomics. That is
	why the Government are so committed to shifting our policy landscape to support the extraordinary role that our NHS can play globally. It is a uniquely well positioned, integrated national health care system, with extraordinary leadership in genomics and informatics, which the Government are actively supporting.
	My hon. Friend made the point that the randomised, double-blind trial has given medicine great service in the 20th century, and I agree. As we move further into the 21st century and see the transformational power of new technologies, it is equally true that the system of expecting the industry to go away and spend 10 to 15 years, and an average of £1.5 billion, to develop a new drug—many of them fail in late-stage clinical trials, because of some toxic side effect in one patient or a few small number of patients—is leading to a crisis in the industry and in the pipeline for new drugs and new treatments, and to patients increasingly suffering because we cannot give them innovative medicines.
	Part of the agenda for this Government and all western Governments is to look at how to accelerate the way in which our health systems support research and to bring innovative medicines, as well as devices, diagnostics and other innovations, to benefit patients more quickly.

Jim Shannon: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did not realise that the business had moved on so fast. In the university in Belfast, we have developed some great partnerships in relation to finding new drugs. Nearby Belfast city hospital works together in partnership with the university to address the issue of innovation for new drugs and to address how best to utilise them and make them available. I know that the Minister is aware of that, but does he recognise that such a partnership—with Queen’s university, financed by big business, alongside the NHS in the form of Belfast city hospital—is a precedent for how to innovate?

George Freeman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work being done in that cluster at Queen’s. I am delighted to say that I will be coming in the new year to support it and to show, as the UK Minister, that there are great clusters in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I very much look forward to that visit.
	The truth is that the landscape is changing. Part of the challenge that we all face is to find ways to accelerate earlier access to innovative treatments for patients, and earlier access for those developing innovative drugs, devices and diagnostics to our health system, so that we can more quickly design innovations that are more targeted and personalised. We are seeing the first genuinely personalised cancer therapies and drugs that, in the unfortunate event that one is diagnosed with cancer, can be designed around one’s genetic profile. I was at a seminar on that development this morning. It is changing the landscape of drug development. We are keen to ensure that we benefit from it in the UK and that we use every mechanism in the NHS to support it.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the Minister accept that a doctor who uses such innovative treatments within the NHS is protected under existing law and that we do not need new legislation to make them available to patients?

George Freeman: I will happily come on to the existing law and the protections within it.
	Three weeks ago, I announced a major review of the landscape of innovative medicines development, which will involve a review of NICE and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. It will look closely at how we can develop a new landscape for the quicker development of innovation with patients in the NHS.
	I reassure the House that the Government are committed in all this work to putting patient safety first and developing a landscape of evidence-based medicine. I have listened carefully to the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes and for Cambridge. I reassure them that I and the Government take their concerns very seriously.
	Lord Saatchi has identified the threat of litigation as a potential barrier to innovation. The purpose of his Bill is to set out a series of steps and a clearer legal framework that will make it less likely for doctors to be put off reasonable innovation because of the rather circular defence that the best treatment is one that is already well established. The intention of the Bill is to tackle the risk that the fear of clinical negligence could undermine the commitment of doctors to embracing innovation in the system. It does not claim to be a panacea or silver bullet to solve all our innovation challenges, but to be one measure in the broader landscape.
	In Committee in the House of Lords, the Government supported Lord Saatchi’s amendments to the Bill, which added an objective test of responsibility to the doctor’s decision to innovate. The amendments exclude any doctors who act irresponsibly from enjoying the protections of the Bill.
	The amended Bill provides a number of other safeguards for patients, including the requirement for doctors to take full account, in a responsible way, of the views of other appropriately qualified clinicians. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes argues that that does not go far enough. I would be interested to hear the views of Members of the upper House who are more qualified than I am when they debate Third reading at the end of the week. The package of amendments is intended to ensure that there is expert peer review of any doctor’s proposal. Furthermore, it ensures that the doctor must act responsibly in taking account of that review, thereby applying an objective standard to their conduct. In addition, the Bill requires any doctor to consider the risks and benefits associated with the proposed treatment, alternative treatments and doing nothing. That provides a further safeguard.
	Let me be clear that we do not want the Bill to prevent patients from taking doctors to court when there is a good reason to do so. Doctors who follow the steps set out in the Bill or the steps required in normal practice should be able to demonstrate more easily that they have acted responsibility, because they will have considered the necessary steps in advance of any innovation. However, by invoking the freedom to innovate that is set out in the Bill, one does not in any way avoid the scrutiny of the courts. Doctors will still have to justify their actions if any case is brought against them, just as they do now.

Julian Huppert: At the beginning of the Minister’s comments, he said that he and the Government were keen to ensure that this would not be a divisive issue, and that they
	would not progress with it if it became one. He now sounds like he is being very supportive of the Bill. Will he provide an assurance that if the Bill continues to have the vast weight of medical and legal expertise against it, whether that is expressed in the House of Lords or by the organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes mentioned, he will ensure that the Government do not back it?

George Freeman: I am merely trying to set out a balanced review of the arguments. In closing my speech, I will give an assurance that I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend on that point.
	On protection, under existing common law and in the Bill doctors must show that they have acted responsibly. They cannot simply go through the motions and seek advice from an inappropriate source as that would not be “responsible”, which is the key test in the Bill and common law. Even if doctors follow the steps in the Bill when deciding to adopt an innovative treatment, they might still carry it out negligently and be subject to a negligence claim in the same way. When something goes wrong it is right that patients are free to seek compensation, and that will continue to be the case. The Government do not want any undermining of protection for patients against clinical negligence.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes made a point about the Bill not requiring doctors to seek the prior agreement of an appropriately qualified doctor, and instead being required only to take account of their views. I would not want the Bill to give a carte blanche to quackery or non-evidence based medicine. The Bill requires a doctor to take full account of the views of at least one appropriately qualified doctor, just as any responsible doctor would be expected to do, and they would not be able to ignore certain views or give them minimal weight by just “noting” them unless there were reasonable grounds for doing so. All doctors will be bound by the core and primary duty of responsibility and care to their patients. If the Bill were to require the explicit agreement of another doctor to innovate—that is one suggestion made in the other place—we are worried that that would open the possibility of a new negligence action against the countersigning doctor and lead to more confusion. We would not be able to give the countersigning doctor any certainty about their legal position, and they would not be able to rely on provisions in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend made a point about undermining confidence in clinical trials. Although the Bill has raised awareness of innovation in medical treatment, it does not confer additional rights on patients to demand innovative treatment. It will still be for the doctor to decide the most appropriate course of treatment in discussion with their patient and using their best professional clinical judgment. Nothing in the Bill allows doctors to bypass any processes or requirements set by their trust when undertaking innovative treatments in the NHS, which includes ensuring that the commissioner would fund the treatment if it is to be provided within the service.
	Individual innovation is important but no substitute for medical research and testing the efficacy of new treatments in a systematic way. A large part of my work
	is about ensuring that we use all of our £1 billion a year for the National Institute for Health Research infrastructure in the NHS, to ensure—as the Prime Minister set out in his speech when launching our life science strategy—that every willing patient is a research patient and every hospital a research hospital, and that we learn from evidence that we develop daily in our interaction with patients. Lord Saatchi and Ministers are determined that doctors should learn from innovative medicine as we go along, and a large part of the NIHR and our data programme is about ensuring that we pick up and track innovations and outcomes more accurately across the system.

Sarah Wollaston: Does the Minister accept that that cannot happen under the Bill, and that those things will remain a series of unlinking anecdotes? In medical science and for the safety of patients no one will be able to track whether there were unintended consequences or benefits, and it will not advance the cause of medical innovation whatsoever.

George Freeman: I would be interested to see the Bill once it has completed its passage through another place and ensure that it contains adequate provision for evidence-based medicine, and that, by encouraging innovation, we are not in any way encouraging medicine that is not supported by the best evidence available.
	My hon. Friend spoke about consultation. The Department of Health carried out a full consultation on the issues raised in the Bill, which ran from February to April this year. It was delighted to receive 170 responses to that consultation, making clear a range of opinions. Responses came from a range of audiences, professional bodies, patients and clinicians. Four regional public consultation events were also held. Lord Saatchi attended those events and it was in no small part thanks to his involvement that a number of changes were made to strengthen the oversight mechanisms in the Bill. At every stage, the Department of Health has engaged with Lord Saatchi to develop amendments to align the policy of the Bill with the legal and expert clinical advice we have taken, including from Sir Bruce Keogh.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is being very generous, although we do appear to have quite a lot of time. He talked about 170 responses. How many were supportive of the Bill and how many were not?

George Freeman: I do not have that information at my fingertips, but I will happily look into it and come back to my hon. Friend if I may.
	Crucially, following the Committee stage, Lord Saatchi and the Government have continued to engage with peers and key stakeholders. Let me take this opportunity, on the question of the Government’s support, to reiterate that this is a private Member’s Bill. This is not a Government Bill. We are very supportive of the Bill’s aims and intent to promote a culture and regulatory framework that is supportive of innovation within the NHS, but it is equally important that we do not in any way damage or undermine public or patient confidence in research in this country and in the NHS. I stress that the Bill has not been given Government time. We are supportive of its principles, but it is very important that when it leaves the House of Lords, where it will have
	been subject to extensive scrutiny by very eminent medical and legal opinion, it comes to us in a format, even if not every single point is unanimously supported, that has the very strong support of our most senior lawyers and medics.
	I want to close by highlighting the fact that the Bill has generated substantial interest, both in Parliament and outside. In many ways, if those concerns can be reflected in high-quality scrutiny and the tabling of amendments, we should be able to demonstrate that democracy works and end up with a Bill that both achieves the aims of Lord Saatchi and reassures those with concerns. I want to be clear that, as the Bill completes its passage in the House of Lords, I hope it returns to this House in a form that the vast majority of medical opinion and respectable bodies in the medical field feel able to support. It is not our intention to have a Bill that undermines public or patient trust in research medicine.
	We cannot legislate for best practice; we can only legislate to support our front-line clinicians to do what they believe is best for their patients. At the heart of that is a sacrosanct duty of care that all clinicians share, and which the Bill does not in any way weaken or undermine. That duty is to do what is best for patients.
	I want to close with some supportive quotes the Bill has received from a number of important people, lest the House should form the view that it is unanimously opposed, which is not the case. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, has said:
	“I am confident that, with the amendments made in Committee stage, the Bill is safe for patients and has the potential to encourage responsible innovation.”
	Sir Bruce Keogh, at NHS England, said:
	“Encouraging innovation in medicine and protecting patients are both of vital importance. That is why I am pleased that amendments have been devised to address concerns about patient safety.”
	Sir Michael Rawlins, president of the Royal Society of Medicine, said that the Bill will allow responsible innovation and treatment:
	“I believe the use of the provisions in the draft Medical Innovation Bill will benefit patients, especially those with rarer diseases, and the furtherance of medical science.”
	A letter to The Telegraph from 40 leading medical professionals, including David Walker, professor of paediatric oncology at Nottingham university and Riccardo Audisio, the president of the Association of Cancer Surgery, said the Bill
	“legally protects doctors who try out innovative new techniques or drugs on patients when all else has failed. This Bill will protect the patient and nurture the innovator. It will encourage safe medical advancement, while at the same time deterring the maverick, thereby recalibrating the culture of defensive medicine. Finally, it will work with evidence-based medicine and provide new data that will inspire and support new research.”
	I hope very much that that is the case and that when the Bill leaves the House of Lords, the vast majority of qualified senior opinion in this field is able to agree with it. It is absolutely our intention to support the Bill’s noble intent to promote medical innovation, but equally our intention is to not undermine in any way the Government’s commitment to patient safety or the duty of care that all clinicians share and owe to their patients.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.